Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Sanyo

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 30, 2007, 3:41 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7
Default

In the instruction for the HD2 there is this line:

"When recording a video clip using a 8 GB card, recording terminates when the data size of the file currently being recored reaches approx. 4GB."

Does this mean you can only use 4GB for video and 4GB for pics?

Does this mean recording just stops and you can continure by restarting the recording?






racerzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 30, 2007, 4:03 PM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Camera vendors use FAT32 for the file system with cards larger than 2GB.

FAT32 allows a largest file size of 4GB (minus 1 byte).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat32#FAT32

So, a single video file (or any other fle for that matter) cannot be more than 4GB, regardless of how much free space you have on the card. You could have more than one video (4GB each) if desired.



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2007, 6:10 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7
Default

Thanks.
racerzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2007, 11:28 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

One wonders what file system they are going to use once FAT32 filesize limits become inadequate. I would imagine NTFS is too Microsoft Specific unlike FAT/FAT32 which was already a sort of universal standard. The alternatives of course are a Linux/Unix style file system or an, as yet unspecified, new proprietry format.

What are others thoughts on this?
rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2007, 8:37 AM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I'd prefer an open source file system.

The fiasco over patents with Microsoft's file systems is not an issue I'm likely to forget anytime soon, with Microsoft demanding license fees from memory card manufacturers if they wanted to pre-format their cards and more.

What I felt was bad is that MS let others use FAT for years without trying to assert those patents (waiting until the file systems were more commonly used as a standard first). Of course, they lost some of the patent battles in court (FAT versus FAT32 patents due to prior art). But, they won some of them, too. When you've got virtually unlimited funds for the legal maneuvers, you're bound to win some the battles. The courts are probably very confused with the techno babble.

The recent Supreme Court decisions should make it harder for companies like MS to patent systems that are obvious in their design. Only time will tell what impact it will have:

One Article on recent Supreme Court rulings on Patents

The industry is nuts right now there are so many patents on things that should not be patentable, and it harms the consumers as well as businesses, not to mention that it stifles real innovation using existing technologies, because of patent and licensing issues.

An open source solution would get my vote.

I'm currently using both ext3 and ReiserFS at home with Linux partitions.

But, there are many file systems to choose from and another one may be more appropriate for flash memory (to fit in better with wear leveling protocols, lower performance penalty for journaling).

Hopefully, manufacturers will begin to look for alternatives to proprietary file systems.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2007, 6:34 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
Default

I am in total agreement with you on this Jim. Another well known example was the gif image format where they decided one day after it was well entrenched and popular that they were going to charge royalties. There are numerous other less well know examples as well.

The problem is, that it is such a mess that even when a format or software is developed that is assumed to be patent free they can often find out years later that something they used in their software wasn't free as they first thought.

Of course it's difficult designing a patent system that assures fairness in that it protects intellectual rights while at the same time preventing as far as practically possible, the exploitation of those patents in an unfair manner.
rgvcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2007, 2:14 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

Yes, I agree, it does seem thatwe can be certain as soon as anything becomespopular, but most importantly profitable, parasites (patent trolls) come out of the woodwork.It's a big problem with open source, apparently many,most often unknowingly, potentially infringe patents, thus preventing companies from risking (even seemingly) making profit around them (like using a filesystem intheir product). Therefore, unfortunately, it may be less risky/costly for a company to simply license a technology from the likes ofMicrosoft and be assured they will be protected from patent trolls. Sad.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:01 AM.