Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Transferring From CF TO SD Card

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 7, 2005 7:19:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP). I'm contemplating getting a
camera that takes SD cards. If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g.
via my PC hard drive, will there be a significant loss of image quality
when printing from the SD card?

Thank you.

Morton Linder

More about : transferring card

March 7, 2005 7:19:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
> resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP). I'm contemplating getting a
> camera that takes SD cards. If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g.
> via my PC hard drive, will there be a significant loss of image quality
> when printing from the SD card?

JPEG and other such "lossy"-compressed images lose resolution only when
opened, edited, and then saved. It's the saving *after editing* that
re-compresses the file (and throws away some of the data).

Simply copying the file from one medium (memory card) to another (hard drive)
does not alter the contents. You can do that millions of times without a
problem.
--
Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:28:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mort wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
> resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP). I'm contemplating getting a
> camera that takes SD cards. If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g.
> via my PC hard drive, will there be a significant loss of image quality
> when printing from the SD card?

As already mentioned, no.. Copying the files will cause no
degradation.

But.. You may not be able to SEE or PRINT your Elph images
on your new camera.

Most cameras follow a rigid file naming system and a fairly
strict directory heirarchy. If your files aren't named
correctly, and/or they're in the wrong directory, you may
not be able to view them on the camera screen, or send them to
a printer.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:46:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mort wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
> resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP). I'm contemplating getting a
> camera that takes SD cards. If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g.
> via my PC hard drive, will there be a significant loss of image quality
> when printing from the SD card?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Morton Linder
>
No. The data is digital. There is no loss.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 7, 2005 11:27:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks, Dave C. and Jim Townsend, for helpful and sensible replies. I now
understand that merely copying a digital photo file will not degrade the file; it
is the editing with JPEG de-and re-compression that causes image losses. I also
understand that transferring a CF card's files to an SD card will serve no
purpose. Should I get a new camera, I will merely save my older images on hard
drive plus burn CD-Rs.

Thanks again for all the answers, but especially these two.

Morton



DaveC wrote:

> > I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
> > resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP). I'm contemplating getting a
> > camera that takes SD cards. If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g.
> > via my PC hard drive, will there be a significant loss of image quality
> > when printing from the SD card?
>
> JPEG and other such "lossy"-compressed images lose resolution only when
> opened, edited, and then saved. It's the saving *after editing* that
> re-compresses the file (and throws away some of the data).
>
> Simply copying the file from one medium (memory card) to another (hard drive)
> does not alter the contents. You can do that millions of times without a
> problem.
> --
> Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
> ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.
>
> DaveC
> me@privacy.net
> This is an invalid return address
> Please reply in the news group
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:28:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:19:26 -0500, mort <mort@cloud9.net> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
>resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP).

Okay.

> I'm contemplating getting a camera that takes SD cards.

WHY?

>If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g. via my PC hard drive,
>will there be a significant loss of image quality when printing from
>the SD card?

No it's a digital copy. Theoretically better than the original.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:37:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mort wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with
> large resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP). I'm contemplating
> getting a camera that takes SD cards. If I transfer the CF data to a
> SD card, e.g. via my PC hard drive, will there be a significant loss
> of image quality when printing from the SD card?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Morton Linder

I can't see why you would do this, but the answer is "no". The contents
of a file are unaltered by all normal copy operations with a PC's file
system (e.g. Explorer). Don't load the image into a processing program
and save it from there, though. Repeated saves /will/ loose quality.

David
March 8, 2005 1:04:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:28:56 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:19:26 -0500, mort <mort@cloud9.net> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
>>resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP).
>
>Okay.
>
>> I'm contemplating getting a camera that takes SD cards.
>
>WHY?
>

Probably the camera he wants has a SD slot, I've just gone SD to CF, I
didn't really want to as my Ipaq and phone use SD so I'd rather stay
with SD, but the camera I wanted was Cf so end of story. I coud get a
CF to SD adapter but it's cheaper to buy some CF cards. Thats the way
the camera makers play the game, we don't need the number of formats
of cards we have, but they keep adding to them, There was absolutly
no reason for fuji to make the XD card, the SD / MMC form factor is
about the same size, but having a "own brand" card mand more royalties
back on sales of extra cards.

>>If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g. via my PC hard drive,
>>will there be a significant loss of image quality when printing from
>>the SD card?
>
>No it's a digital copy. Theoretically better than the original.

Thats silly, how on earth can a copy be better than the original. You
could post process it on the PC but then it's not the original.

The question is probably why would you want to transfer them onto a
new card? surely the OP has them on the PC and if you need copiies
just burn them to a CD, (unless s/he has no cd burner)

A digital copy is a bit for bit copy, it's exactly the same as the
original for all intents and purposes.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:37:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:04:39 GMT, Gavin <gavin@mindless.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:28:56 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:19:26 -0500, mort <mort@cloud9.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
>>>resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP).
>>
>>Okay.
>>
>>> I'm contemplating getting a camera that takes SD cards.
>>
>>WHY?
>>
>
>Probably the camera he wants has a SD slot, I've just gone SD to CF, I
>didn't really want to as my Ipaq and phone use SD so I'd rather stay
>with SD, but the camera I wanted was Cf so end of story. I coud get a
>CF to SD adapter but it's cheaper to buy some CF cards. Thats the way
>the camera makers play the game, we don't need the number of formats
>of cards we have, but they keep adding to them, There was absolutly
>no reason for fuji to make the XD card, the SD / MMC form factor is
>about the same size, but having a "own brand" card mand more royalties
>back on sales of extra cards.

SD will die, due to it's 2Gb maximum size [at least, in it's most
compatible format]. CF is the way forward (for now...)

>>>If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g. via my PC hard drive,
>>>will there be a significant loss of image quality when printing from
>>>the SD card?
>>
>>No it's a digital copy. Theoretically better than the original.
>
>Thats silly, how on earth can a copy be better than the original. You
>could post process it on the PC but then it's not the original.

I was waiting for the bite...

There is a very high chance that a digital copy will be better than
the original. The only thing that can affect this is an error in the
copy which is usually detected by CRC and other
error-detection/correction systems built into the device. So, assuming
we get a good copy consider this:

Most digital data is actually represented in analog form, be it
magnetic media (an analog polarization of the ferromagnetic material),
optical media (the dye or crystal layer) or flash storage cards (many
electrons). Essentially the media is analog. A digital 1 or 0 is
represented by an agreed majority or minority of the analog
magnetization, transparency/reflectivity, crystallization, or sum of
electrons remaining in the bucket.

Of course, in time, the analog data starts to degrade, which isn't a
problem usually because we take 7% or less as a digital 1, 65% or more
as a digital 0 (examples, not realistic).

Now, take our slowly degrading data and make a copy. It's now stored
as 0% for digital 1,s 100% as digital 0's again and is better, because
the analog component is fresher and will last longer..

Massive generalizations, I know, but I hope you get my point.

A digital copy of a 2 year old magnetic DAT tape will be superior to
the original, simply because it will last longer than the old one.
Same is true of a CDR/CDRW/DVDR/DVDRW/HD/FLOPPY/ZIP-DRIVE copy or a
FLASH memory card copy.

>The question is probably why would you want to transfer them onto a
>new card? surely the OP has them on the PC and if you need copiies
>just burn them to a CD, (unless s/he has no cd burner)

Indeed, I don't know.

>A digital copy is a bit for bit copy, it's exactly the same as the
>original for all intents and purposes.

But newer, so fresher, and will last longer for all intents and
purposes. Introduce superior destination media usually involved in the
copy (eg migrating from Floppy to CDR or CDR to DVDR), and the copy is
a *clear* winner for being better than the original.

<g>

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:37:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:04:39 GMT, Gavin <gavin@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:28:56 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:19:26 -0500, mort <mort@cloud9.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
>>>>resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP).
>>>
>>>Okay.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm contemplating getting a camera that takes SD cards.
>>>
>>>WHY?
>>>
>>
>>Probably the camera he wants has a SD slot, I've just gone SD to CF, I
>>didn't really want to as my Ipaq and phone use SD so I'd rather stay
>>with SD, but the camera I wanted was Cf so end of story. I coud get a
>>CF to SD adapter but it's cheaper to buy some CF cards. Thats the way
>>the camera makers play the game, we don't need the number of formats
>>of cards we have, but they keep adding to them, There was absolutly
>>no reason for fuji to make the XD card, the SD / MMC form factor is
>>about the same size, but having a "own brand" card mand more royalties
>>back on sales of extra cards.
>
>
> SD will die, due to it's 2Gb maximum size [at least, in it's most
> compatible format]. CF is the way forward (for now...)
>
>
>>>>If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g. via my PC hard drive,
>>>>will there be a significant loss of image quality when printing from
>>>>the SD card?
>>>
>>>No it's a digital copy. Theoretically better than the original.
>>
>>Thats silly, how on earth can a copy be better than the original. You
>>could post process it on the PC but then it's not the original.
>
>
> I was waiting for the bite...
>
> There is a very high chance that a digital copy will be better than
> the original. The only thing that can affect this is an error in the
> copy which is usually detected by CRC and other
> error-detection/correction systems built into the device. So, assuming
> we get a good copy consider this:
>
> Most digital data is actually represented in analog form, be it
> magnetic media (an analog polarization of the ferromagnetic material),
> optical media (the dye or crystal layer) or flash storage cards (many
> electrons). Essentially the media is analog. A digital 1 or 0 is
> represented by an agreed majority or minority of the analog
> magnetization, transparency/reflectivity, crystallization, or sum of
> electrons remaining in the bucket.
>
> Of course, in time, the analog data starts to degrade, which isn't a
> problem usually because we take 7% or less as a digital 1, 65% or more
> as a digital 0 (examples, not realistic).
>
> Now, take our slowly degrading data and make a copy. It's now stored
> as 0% for digital 1,s 100% as digital 0's again and is better, because
> the analog component is fresher and will last longer..
>
> Massive generalizations, I know, but I hope you get my point.
>
> A digital copy of a 2 year old magnetic DAT tape will be superior to
> the original, simply because it will last longer than the old one.
> Same is true of a CDR/CDRW/DVDR/DVDRW/HD/FLOPPY/ZIP-DRIVE copy or a
> FLASH memory card copy.
>
>
>>The question is probably why would you want to transfer them onto a
>>new card? surely the OP has them on the PC and if you need copiies
>>just burn them to a CD, (unless s/he has no cd burner)
>
>
> Indeed, I don't know.
>
>
>>A digital copy is a bit for bit copy, it's exactly the same as the
>>original for all intents and purposes.
>
>
> But newer, so fresher, and will last longer for all intents and
> purposes. Introduce superior destination media usually involved in the
> copy (eg migrating from Floppy to CDR or CDR to DVDR), and the copy is
> a *clear* winner for being better than the original.
>
> <g>
>
> --
> Owamanga!

It will produce no better print than the original, thus in point of
importance, it is no better.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:45:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:41:11 -0800, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
>ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

Dave, You are now a usenet graduate - answering questions instead of
just asking them, time to update your sig.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:53:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:49:35 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:04:39 GMT, Gavin <gavin@mindless.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:28:56 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:19:26 -0500, mort <mort@cloud9.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
>>>>>resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP).
>>>>
>>>>Okay.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm contemplating getting a camera that takes SD cards.
>>>>
>>>>WHY?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Probably the camera he wants has a SD slot, I've just gone SD to CF, I
>>>didn't really want to as my Ipaq and phone use SD so I'd rather stay
>>>with SD, but the camera I wanted was Cf so end of story. I coud get a
>>>CF to SD adapter but it's cheaper to buy some CF cards. Thats the way
>>>the camera makers play the game, we don't need the number of formats
>>>of cards we have, but they keep adding to them, There was absolutly
>>>no reason for fuji to make the XD card, the SD / MMC form factor is
>>>about the same size, but having a "own brand" card mand more royalties
>>>back on sales of extra cards.
>>
>>
>> SD will die, due to it's 2Gb maximum size [at least, in it's most
>> compatible format]. CF is the way forward (for now...)
>>
>>
>>>>>If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g. via my PC hard drive,
>>>>>will there be a significant loss of image quality when printing from
>>>>>the SD card?
>>>>
>>>>No it's a digital copy. Theoretically better than the original.
>>>
>>>Thats silly, how on earth can a copy be better than the original. You
>>>could post process it on the PC but then it's not the original.
>>
>>
>> I was waiting for the bite...
>>
>> There is a very high chance that a digital copy will be better than
>> the original. The only thing that can affect this is an error in the
>> copy which is usually detected by CRC and other
>> error-detection/correction systems built into the device. So, assuming
>> we get a good copy consider this:
>>
>> Most digital data is actually represented in analog form, be it
>> magnetic media (an analog polarization of the ferromagnetic material),
>> optical media (the dye or crystal layer) or flash storage cards (many
>> electrons). Essentially the media is analog. A digital 1 or 0 is
>> represented by an agreed majority or minority of the analog
>> magnetization, transparency/reflectivity, crystallization, or sum of
>> electrons remaining in the bucket.
>>
>> Of course, in time, the analog data starts to degrade, which isn't a
>> problem usually because we take 7% or less as a digital 1, 65% or more
>> as a digital 0 (examples, not realistic).
>>
>> Now, take our slowly degrading data and make a copy. It's now stored
>> as 0% for digital 1,s 100% as digital 0's again and is better, because
>> the analog component is fresher and will last longer..
>>
>> Massive generalizations, I know, but I hope you get my point.
>>
>> A digital copy of a 2 year old magnetic DAT tape will be superior to
>> the original, simply because it will last longer than the old one.
>> Same is true of a CDR/CDRW/DVDR/DVDRW/HD/FLOPPY/ZIP-DRIVE copy or a
>> FLASH memory card copy.
>>
>>
>>>The question is probably why would you want to transfer them onto a
>>>new card? surely the OP has them on the PC and if you need copiies
>>>just burn them to a CD, (unless s/he has no cd burner)
>>
>>
>> Indeed, I don't know.
>>
>>
>>>A digital copy is a bit for bit copy, it's exactly the same as the
>>>original for all intents and purposes.
>>
>>
>> But newer, so fresher, and will last longer for all intents and
>> purposes. Introduce superior destination media usually involved in the
>> copy (eg migrating from Floppy to CDR or CDR to DVDR), and the copy is
>> a *clear* winner for being better than the original.
>>
>> <g>
>>
>
>It will produce no better print than the original, thus in point of
>importance, it is no better.

"Theoretically better than the original."

I never said it would print better.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 3:06:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:46:41 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>mort wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have about 75 images, shot at JPEG superfine compression with large
>> resolution (on Digital Elph S500 = 5 MP). I'm contemplating getting a
>> camera that takes SD cards. If I transfer the CF data to a SD card, e.g.
>> via my PC hard drive, will there be a significant loss of image quality
>> when printing from the SD card?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Morton Linder
>>
>No. The data is digital. There is no loss.

In a perfect world, yes, the data copy is guaranteed and phrases such
as 'data corruption' don't exist.

HDDs and CF/SD cards share similar unrecoverable read error rates,
they are exceedingly good - quoted around 1 bit of every 100 Trillion
bits.

This shows them to be significantly reliable and a failure never
happen in a man's lifetime. Even the MTBF of a CF card is quoted to be
about 57 years of continuous use. But consider this: Most HDDs are now
quoted to have a MTBF of 136 years, continuous use.

Excellent.

Reality: I've seen several of my HDDs die, sometimes with complete
data loss. By these calculations I've got to be at least 450 years
old. Strange, because I don't feel to shabby.

--
Owamanga!
March 9, 2005 9:34:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

> Reality: I've seen several of my HDDs die, sometimes with complete
> data loss. By these calculations I've got to be at least 450 years
> old.

Everything averages out. Thanks to you and your dead drives mine are going to last
until I'm 1000. That's good, since CD-R's aren't free anymore.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
!