Kitschiguy Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 Does anyone know if there are any compatibility issues between windows XP and SDHC memory cards? I've just bought a 4GB SDHC memory card and I'm using a laptop with XP. When I insert the card in to the laptop nothing happens but if I insert the card in to the camera and connect to the laptop with the USB it works fine. Just wondered if its faulty or if it's got something to do with it being and HC type card? All of my other cards work fine - Memory Stick, SD and CF but none of them are high capacity. Make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katoom Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 Sorry, can't help ya. It's my pleasure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitschiguy Posted November 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 Although identical in size to todays standard SD card, the new SDHC cards are designed differently and are only recognized by SDHC host devices. To ensure compatibility, look for the SDHC logo on cards and host devices (cameras, camcorders, etc.). http://www.kingston.com/flash/sdhc.asp It appears as you thought Matt that the drive in your laptop isn't compatible with the HC format. Cheers PiAnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 i've stayed away from the 4gb cards generally, as they are a relatively new technology whereas the 2gb are well proven, and generally backward compatible. why do you want to use the card reader in the first place? are you shooting more than one card per day? i usually just dump to computer using usb anyway--saves wear and tear on all those little moving parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 i've stayed away from the 4gb cards generally, as they are a relatively new technology whereas the 2gb are well proven, and generally backward compatible. You use 2gb cards because you need them to be backwardly compatible? Yes I see it now. imagine yourself in a situation where you're on the road and have to get a photo to a client and your camera battery has died. do you think you'd find a card reader that would read 4gb cards in a dodgy shop on a backstreet in bombay? why do you want to use the card reader in the first place? are you shooting more than one card per day? i usually just dump to computer using usb anyway--saves wear and tear on all those little moving parts. Yes all those springs, cogs and pendulums are a pain in the arse. Whatever happened to solid state electronics? i'm thinking doors, spring-loaded eject levers, etc. you know, the kind you use every time you take the card out of the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 i've stayed away from the 4gb cards generally, as they are a relatively new technology whereas the 2gb are well proven, and generally backward compatible. You use 2gb cards because you need them to be backwardly compatible? Yes I see it now. imagine yourself in a situation where you're on the road and have to get a photo to a client and your camera battery has died. do you think you'd find a card reader that would read 4gb cards in a dodgy shop on a backstreet in bombay? Well if you put it that way. Why am I in Bombay again? I might have lost the plot on this one. it was a thought experiment. you know, approach it *as if* you got out of bangkok once in a while. a bit of a stretch, i know... borders on implausible. why do you want to use the card reader in the first place? are you shooting more than one card per day? i usually just dump to computer using usb anyway--saves wear and tear on all those little moving parts. Yes all those springs, cogs and pendulums are a pain in the arse. Whatever happened to solid state electronics? i'm thinking doors, spring-loaded eject levers, etc. you know, the kind you use every time you take the card out of the camera. I see. Those camera manufacturers haven't got their heads around doors and springs yet. We're all doomed. (But I bet Canon are ahead of Nikon in door/spring research.) regardless of the quality of the doors and springs, moving parts wear out faster than parts that don't move. i realize physics is not a required course for english teachers but you *have* heard of friction haven't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 ps if the bombay scenario is too complicated, imagine you got a really good deal on an old point and shoot camera that takes SD cards, or an old gadget (like one of those pimped out phones) that takes SD cards. if it is older than 4gb cards, it won't work with 4gb cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 i've stayed away from the 4gb cards generally, as they are a relatively new technology whereas the 2gb are well proven, and generally backward compatible. You use 2gb cards because you need them to be backwardly compatible? Yes I see it now. imagine yourself in a situation where you're on the road and have to get a photo to a client and your camera battery has died. do you think you'd find a card reader that would read 4gb cards in a dodgy shop on a backstreet in bombay? Well if you put it that way. Why am I in Bombay again? I might have lost the plot on this one. it was a thought experiment. you know, approach it *as if* you got out of bangkok once in a while. a bit of a stretch, i know... borders on implausible. You got me. why do you want to use the card reader in the first place? are you shooting more than one card per day? i usually just dump to computer using usb anyway--saves wear and tear on all those little moving parts. Yes all those springs, cogs and pendulums are a pain in the arse. Whatever happened to solid state electronics? i'm thinking doors, spring-loaded eject levers, etc. you know, the kind you use every time you take the card out of the camera. I see. Those camera manufacturers haven't got their heads around doors and springs yet. We're all doomed. (But I bet Canon are ahead of Nikon in door/spring research.) regardless of the quality of the doors and springs, moving parts wear out faster than parts that don't move. i realize physics is not a required course for english teachers but you *have* heard of friction haven't you? Quite. And, quite again. Hang on a mo, my front door just fell off. Damn this modern technology. Maybe I should just USB myself indoors. Save all that wear and tear on hinges and the like. (I know you know this quote within quote thing is beginning to give me a headache you b*stard.) really? i had no idea. <<adjusts halo>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitschiguy Posted November 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 i've stayed away from the 4gb cards generally, as they are a relatively new technology whereas the 2gb are well proven, and generally backward compatible. why do you want to use the card reader in the first place? are you shooting more than one card per day? i usually just dump to computer using usb anyway--saves wear and tear on all those little moving parts. Yeah, actually I'm use a couple of cards a day sometimes (I'm shooting high-res movies too). I don't actually use a card reader, I use the SD slot on the machine as it's a bit quicker, more convenient and saves battery power on the camera (the Canon batts take a long time to charge). I don't have to, (I use the USB for CF cards, I think the 8/16GB CF cards are built on the same solid-state technology as the 2GB ones anyway. I think only SD are different) but I'd never seen this happen before, and wasn't aware that all but the most recent laptops don't support the SDHC card technology, so my main concern was that the SDHC card was faulty, and loosing up to 750 photos would upset me considerably. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 i've stayed away from the 4gb cards generally, as they are a relatively new technology whereas the 2gb are well proven, and generally backward compatible. why do you want to use the card reader in the first place? are you shooting more than one card per day? i usually just dump to computer using usb anyway--saves wear and tear on all those little moving parts. Yeah, actually I'm use a couple of cards a day sometimes (I'm shooting high-res movies too). I don't actually use a card reader, I use the SD slot on the machine as it's a bit quicker, more convenient and saves battery power on the camera (the Canon batts take a long time to charge). I don't have to, (I use the USB for CF cards, I think the 8/16GB CF cards are built on the same solid-state technology as the 2GB ones anyway. I think only SD are different) but I'd never seen this happen before, and wasn't aware that all but the most recent laptops don't support the SDHC card technology, so my main concern was that the SDHC card was faulty, and loosing up to 750 photos would upset me considerably. Cheers what camera are you using, and why do you shoot movies on your still camera? (in other words, don't they make video cameras for that)? how do they turn out? by 'hi-res' do you mean broadcast quality, or hi def, or something specific to your camera? does it record sound? all of this is very strange to me, this using still cameras to make video. but someitmes, as with mobile phone cameras, it kinda looks cool in its way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitschiguy Posted November 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 i've stayed away from the 4gb cards generally, as they are a relatively new technology whereas the 2gb are well proven, and generally backward compatible. why do you want to use the card reader in the first place? are you shooting more than one card per day? i usually just dump to computer using usb anyway--saves wear and tear on all those little moving parts. Yeah, actually I'm use a couple of cards a day sometimes (I'm shooting high-res movies too). I don't actually use a card reader, I use the SD slot on the machine as it's a bit quicker, more convenient and saves battery power on the camera (the Canon batts take a long time to charge). I don't have to, (I use the USB for CF cards, I think the 8/16GB CF cards are built on the same solid-state technology as the 2GB ones anyway. I think only SD are different) but I'd never seen this happen before, and wasn't aware that all but the most recent laptops don't support the SDHC card technology, so my main concern was that the SDHC card was faulty, and loosing up to 750 photos would upset me considerably. Cheers what camera are you using, and why do you shoot movies on your still camera? (in other words, don't they make video cameras for that)? how do they turn out? by 'hi-res' do you mean broadcast quality, or hi def, or something specific to your camera? does it record sound? all of this is very strange to me, this using still cameras to make video. but someitmes, as with mobile phone cameras, it kinda looks cool in its way.... It's a Canon G9. I shoot movies on it because I can. Although I bought it to take photographs. Just been experimenting, and they turn out very well If by 'broadcast quality' you mean TV then of course not - it's a compact. But it records in 1024x768 with sound, which is regarded as high-res but not high-def or even DVD quality. But still very good for 12.1MP still camera that only cost 250 quid. (HK price) It can also record in standard 640 size at 30fps or 15fps, 640 LP and 160 (for e-mail. All handy features. Best of all though it's got a colour swap/accent feature for stills and movies, great fun. And you can change the lenses and shoot in RAW format! My original point was that in hi-res you can get about 31 minutes to a 4GB SD card - not very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 so resolution-wise it is in the range of broadcast or even hi-def, but has way more compression. (mini dv, which is considered to be highly compressed but capable of capturing footage to be used for broadcast, is about 6.75 gigs per half hour, so it's even more compressed than mini dv) do the images have an interesting look to 'em beyond the heavy compression? seems like it would be ideal for webcast or similar applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitschiguy Posted November 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 so resolution-wise it is in the range of broadcast or even hi-def, but has way more compression. (mini dv, which is considered to be highly compressed but capable of capturing footage to be used for broadcast, is about 6.75 gigs per half hour, so it's even more compressed than mini dv) do the images have an interesting look to 'em beyond the heavy compression? seems like it would be ideal for webcast or similar applications. Forgot to say - it's AVI format. Yes perfect for webcast I would think. What do you mean by interesting look? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 so resolution-wise it is in the range of broadcast or even hi-def, but has way more compression. (mini dv, which is considered to be highly compressed but capable of capturing footage to be used for broadcast, is about 6.75 gigs per half hour, so it's even more compressed than mini dv) do the images have an interesting look to 'em beyond the heavy compression? seems like it would be ideal for webcast or similar applications. Forgot to say - it's AVI format. Yes perfect for webcast I would think. What do you mean by interesting look? does it look like regular video or are there 'signs' beyond the compression artifacts that it was shot on something other than a video camera? for example i like the look of choppy low-res mobile phone footage, and security cameras with their strobe-y motion. even though technically, they're crap. i'd expect your camera to look like it was shot with a decent camera and lens. depending on the size of the chip it might even look better than many video cameras. just wondering if there is anything unique about the look of the footage. and yeah as Pantsuit said, i'm looking for porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave40 Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 i'm looking for porn So is Paris Hilton at least you will have some things in common!!! (maybe one thing in common) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 i'm looking for porn So is Paris Hilton at least you will have some things in common!!! (maybe one thing in common) if paris hilton thinks paris hilton''s a useless ditzy turd then that's TWO things in common... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitschiguy Posted November 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 so resolution-wise it is in the range of broadcast or even hi-def, but has way more compression. (mini dv, which is considered to be highly compressed but capable of capturing footage to be used for broadcast, is about 6.75 gigs per half hour, so it's even more compressed than mini dv) do the images have an interesting look to 'em beyond the heavy compression? seems like it would be ideal for webcast or similar applications. Forgot to say - it's AVI format. Yes perfect for webcast I would think. What do you mean by interesting look? does it look like regular video or are there 'signs' beyond the compression artifacts that it was shot on something other than a video camera? for example i like the look of choppy low-res mobile phone footage, and security cameras with their strobe-y motion. even though technically, they're crap. i'd expect your camera to look like it was shot with a decent camera and lens. depending on the size of the chip it might even look better than many video cameras. just wondering if there is anything unique about the look of the footage. and yeah as Pantsuit said, i'm looking for porn. I wouldn't say there's anything unique about it, although shooting hi-res footage on a compact still camera is pretty unique at the moment. The hi-res mode actually gives the chobby/strobey effect you like due to the slower frame rate - 15fps. Standard mode, which is much smalle,r is actually 30fps so it's slightly smoother. Large censor video cameras that use compressed MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 have much higher frame rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 The hi-res mode actually gives the chobby/strobey effect you like due to the slower frame rate - 15fps. Standard mode, which is much smalle,r is actually 30fps so it's slightly smoother. Large censor video cameras that use compressed MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 have much higher frame rates. some video cameras (like that panasonic hidef that gives me such a stiffy) have variable frame rates, but the standard frame rates are 30 interlaced (ntsc) 25 interlaced (pal and secam) and 24 progressive scan (for transfer to film). 15 fps will be strobey hidef. that would have been perfect for some stuff for a music video i shot with my (video-unfriendly) dslr. have to look into this; how big and bulky is this camera? how heavy? how durable? sounds very interesting indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beej Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 **** all that digital bumf, I got me a new film camera thats going to blow peoples eyes out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 f*ck all that digital bumf, I got me a new film camera thats going to blow peoples eyes out! i bet your precious leica can't do movies though. thus, you are useless to me, *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beej Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 f*ck all that digital bumf, I got me a new film camera thats going to blow peoples eyes out! i bet your precious leica can't do movies though. thus, you are useless to me, b*tch. Look here tech boffin, when you finish fixing my computer you will be nothing but one of my lurid want fantasies so hurry up and get on the MRT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitschiguy Posted November 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 The hi-res mode actually gives the chobby/strobey effect you like due to the slower frame rate - 15fps. Standard mode, which is much smalle,r is actually 30fps so it's slightly smoother. Large censor video cameras that use compressed MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 have much higher frame rates. some video cameras (like that panasonic hidef that gives me such a stiffy) have variable frame rates, but the standard frame rates are 30 interlaced (ntsc) 25 interlaced (pal and secam) and 24 progressive scan (for transfer to film). 15 fps will be strobey hidef. that would have been perfect for some stuff for a music video i shot with my (video-unfriendly) dslr. have to look into this; how big and bulky is this camera? how heavy? how durable? sounds very interesting indeed. Dimensions are - 106.4 x 71.9 x 42.5 mm and it weighs 320g. Build quality is excellent. It's built like a tank for a compact - no worries there Worth remembering is that quality suffers in low light, but that could be used creatively, and panning can be tricky. It also has a time lapse function (640 x 480 @ 0.5/1fps, playback @15fps) I haven't used it yet but if it works well could be lots of fun. Also, all the reviews I read said that you can't zoom in movie mode but you can zoom in all but the 1024x728 modes. Didn't really bother me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now