Re: Why not a SATA SSD the size of a CF card?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: Last night, I was thinking about how one performance limitation that I run up against the most often is write speed to the storage. My first idea was a camera grip that had a slot for a laptop SSD drive. My second thought was that a compact SSD would be better. Even if storage were limited on the initial generations of the platform, even 128GB at SATA, or better yet STA-3 speeds, would be so much better than writing to SD cards. We're talking up to 1500-3000 MBPS rather than 30-45: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bit_rates I expect that in ten years the SATA bandwidth might start proving claustrophobic again, but it would certainly be a big improvement over SD cards. Both for the initial write time, and for transferring files to the computer. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est That's exactly what a CFast card is, SATA rather than PATA Compact Flash. XQD which is PCI Express rather than SATA is also an option. Note that SSD's are the same at the chip level as CF cards. But SD is capable of comparable speeds to current XQD or CFast implementations with the UHS-I cards. The speed rating is pretty irrelevant now, the current next-gen interfaces (CFast, XQD, SDXC) are all capable of significantly more bandwidth than current devices are (with the exception of CF and SDHC, both of which are limited by their interfaces) -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Why not a SATA SSD the size of a CF card?
Last night, I was thinking about how one performance limitation that I run up against the most often is write speed to the storage. My first idea was a camera grip that had a slot for a laptop SSD drive. My second thought was that a compact SSD would be better. Even if storage were limited on the initial generations of the platform, even 128GB at SATA, or better yet STA-3 speeds, would be so much better than writing to SD cards. We're talking up to 1500-3000 MBPS rather than 30-45: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bit_rates I expect that in ten years the SATA bandwidth might start proving claustrophobic again, but it would certainly be a big improvement over SD cards. Both for the initial write time, and for transferring files to the computer. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why not a SATA SSD the size of a CF card?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:36:09AM -0700, Larry Colen wrote: Last night, I was thinking about how one performance limitation that I run up against the most often is write speed to the storage. My first idea was a camera grip that had a slot for a laptop SSD drive. My second thought was that a compact SSD would be better. Even if storage were limited on the initial generations of the platform, even 128GB at SATA, or better yet STA-3 speeds, would be so much better than writing to SD cards. We're talking up to 1500-3000 MBPS rather than 30-45: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bit_rates 1) That wouldn't help. The I/O subsystem in the camera can't handle that sort of data rate. It's no good putting in a fast device if you can't feed data to it fast enough. 2) Physically attached storage? How 20th-century. Think wireless. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why not a SATA SSD the size of a CF card?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: We're talking up to 1500-3000 MBPS rather than 30-45: You're mixing units. SATA II is 3000 Mb/s (megabits per second), while 30-45 MB/s (megabytes per second) is about right for SD cards (with Sandisk's fastest now somewhat faster than that). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why not a SATA SSD the size of a CF card?
On Jun 27, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: We're talking up to 1500-3000 MBPS rather than 30-45: You're mixing units. SATA II is 3000 Mb/s (megabits per second), while 30-45 MB/s (megabytes per second) is about right for SD cards (with Sandisk's fastest now somewhat faster than that). An order of magnitude improvement is still very helpful. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why not a SATA SSD the size of a CF card?
On Jun 27, 2012, at 11:43 AM, John Francis wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:36:09AM -0700, Larry Colen wrote: Last night, I was thinking about how one performance limitation that I run up against the most often is write speed to the storage. My first idea was a camera grip that had a slot for a laptop SSD drive. My second thought was that a compact SSD would be better. Even if storage were limited on the initial generations of the platform, even 128GB at SATA, or better yet STA-3 speeds, would be so much better than writing to SD cards. We're talking up to 1500-3000 MBPS rather than 30-45: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bit_rates 1) That wouldn't help. The I/O subsystem in the camera can't handle that sort of data rate. It's no good putting in a fast device if you can't feed data to it fast enough. The I/O subsystem in the camera is still fast enough that the buffer is a lot faster than writing to the card. I wouldn't necessarily want a system that is already maxed out anyways, I'd want something specified far enough above the current levels that it isn't outgrown in two moore's cycles. 2) Physically attached storage? How 20th-century. Think wireless. Wireless has advantages, until you get 50 people at the same event all using it and run into packet collisions. Then there are the security concerns. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why not a SATA SSD the size of a CF card?
On 6/27/2012 2:36 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Last night, I was thinking about how one performance limitation that I run up against the most often is write speed to the storage. My first idea was a camera grip that had a slot for a laptop SSD drive. My second thought was that a compact SSD would be better. Even if storage were limited on the initial generations of the platform, even 128GB at SATA, or better yet STA-3 speeds, would be so much better than writing to SD cards. We're talking up to 1500-3000 MBPS rather than 30-45: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bit_rates I expect that in ten years the SATA bandwidth might start proving claustrophobic again, but it would certainly be a big improvement over SD cards. Both for the initial write time, and for transferring files to the computer. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est Power requirements and heat dissipation might be a problem. -- Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthly search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why not a SATA SSD the size of a CF card?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: An order of magnitude improvement is still very helpful. By the next revision of the specification (UHS-II), SD will offer interface speeds of 156 312 MB/s, reaching parity with the SATA 1 2 specs you mention. The current UHS-1 specification already supports 104 MB/s, which is not that far off, especially from SATA I. I think a key reason that real SSDs are faster than SD in practice is that a real SSD operates a bunch of flash chips in parallel. In fact, that's a difference between high-end and low-end SSDs of the same capacity and physical size--the teardown photos usually show more chips on the high-end SSD. So you're not going to get full SSD performance at CF size, let alone SD size. (Plus there's heat and power concerns as P.J. points out.) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why not a SATA SSD the size of a CF card?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: Last night, I was thinking about how one performance limitation that I run up against the most often is write speed to the storage. Ansel Machine Gun Adams used to complain about that all the time. Thinking outside the box here, Larry: have you considered digital video? One shutter press and you're getting continuous 24 frames per second. With a RED system you can shoot at 1000 FPS. :-) -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
