backtop

Print 18 comment(s) - last by Solandri.. on Dec 1 at 1:53 AM
New spec is much faster than existing CF cards

The CompactFlash card is a common storage medium in imaging devices today from D-SLR cameras to high-end HD video cameras. The current CF specification is based on the old PATA interface, which is much slower than more modern interfaces on the market.

Three industry heavy weights have come together to propose a new standard for a next generation storage medium to the CompactFlash Association. The new specification is being proposed by Sony, SanDisk, and Nikon. The idea the three firms are offering for ratification as a standard uses the much faster PCI Express interface.

The PCIe based specification would have a maximum theoretical bandwidth of 500MB/s whereas the existing PATA interface tops out at a much slower 167MB/s. The faster speed would allow photographers to shoot large resolution RAW images in bursts without having shot limits and lag that are currently common with bursts of high-resolution images with the existing storage medium.

"This ultra high-speed media format will enable further evolution of hardware and imaging applications, and widen the memory card options available to CompactFlash users such as professional photographers," said Mr. Shigeto Kanda, Canon, and chairman of the board, CFA. "This next generation format is expected to be widely adapted to various products, including those other than high-end D-SLRs."

In addition to being much faster than the current CF specification, the new spec would also allow for higher storage capacity than existing cards. The proposed specification would allow for storage capacity up to 2TB. The cards proposed by the new specification would be similar in size to current CF cards. The new specification would also be much faster than the CFast cards proposed way back in 2008.

"The ultra high-speed media, which will be realized by this new card format, will expand the capability of digital SLR cameras and other professional digital imaging equipment," said Mr. Kazuyuki Kazami, operating officer, vice president and general manager, development headquarters, imaging company, Nikon Corporation.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
SATA?
By Jeremy87 on 11/30/2010 12:22:59 PM , Rating: 3
Why PCIe? SATA would be more natural for storage.




RE: SATA?
By namechamps on 11/30/2010 12:28:27 PM , Rating: 5
Actually not. The SATA spec was designed for spinning mangetic disks and is rather "heavy" standard providing backwards support for various legacy modes and options (like optical media). OCZ and other SSD manufacturers are already looking for a modern solid state protocol which would be optimized for the way flash works.

Sure SATA can support flash (and it does) but it is hardly optimal. Flash controllers do a lot of work to make reads and write compatible with the bus in order to maintain support with existing drivers, firmware, OS.


RE: SATA?
By MeesterNid on 11/30/2010 12:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
SATA still uses PCIe so going straight PCIe is arguably better.


RE: SATA?
By sprockkets on 11/30/2010 3:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I remember some time back that CF was going to use SATA instead of PATA it uses now.

So much for that.


Finnaly we won't have to worry about SDXCs SDHCs.
By greylica on 11/30/2010 12:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone whose recently bought a professional camera knows that the first thing we have to do prior to long footage films, like theatre concerts and so on, is to buy larger SDXC/SDHC cards.
Today, any professional has a practical ''obligation'' to have at least 4 cards depending on his camera to make long footages, and afterall, discharge the entire footage in any other device before using it again.
The problem is dramatic when cameras are being sold with 16 GB SDXC/SDHC cards for Full HD footage (with a label ''full hd capable'' at 30p or 60i). The first thing is to buy another 128GB card in order to have at least 1 hour of ''good'' HD film.
May in the near future, we will have at least a professional entry camera sold with at least 128GB (for 1 Hour) of HD.
And, because of the fastest cards, may we have also AVI HD or RAW + Z using 2 or 3 of those in Raid.




By namechamps on 11/30/2010 12:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
That has nothing to do with the format and everything to do with the reality that flash is expensive. Compact flash isn't any cheaper than SDXC and it isn't likely going to magically make "giant" flash media hit the market.

The SDXC spec allows cards up to 2TB in size. Why don't you see 2TB flash cards? Cost. In mass produced (millions of units sold) card flash runs about $2-$3 per GB. 2TB would cost around $6000. However the market for a 2TB flash card is very small thus one would enjoy lower economies of scale pushing prices even higher $8K, $10K, maybe even $20K.

A new standard isn't going to change that. You will see CF cards of roughly the same size as SDXC.

Camcorders come with 16GB of storage because price is massive to the consumer. 32GB vs 16GB is roughly $50 and companies have learned that selling your unit for $50 more means you sell less. going to 64GB vs 16GB is more like a $150 - $200 premium.

Hell if it were up to me Cameras and other devices would come with NO storage. Simply buy your own (or use existing ones).


RE: Finnaly we won't have to worry about SDXCs SDHCs.
By MrTeal on 11/30/2010 2:25:45 PM , Rating: 3
The other issue is that at current densities, you wouldn't be able to fit 2TB of NAND flash into a SD form factor. Toshiba has a 128GB flash chip with 16 stacked 8GB dies, but fitting 2TB into a card 2.1mm thick just isn't currently possible, even for $10k.


By greylica on 11/30/2010 2:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
This discussion leaded me to the question above again:
- Why Not Sata 6 GBPs ?
- Is this because of Sata protocol handling ?
- Why aren't they thinking in a PC mass storage solution ?

A friend of mine said:
Seagate Patents...


By tastyratz on 11/30/2010 4:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
Because pci express is more easily integrated with a bus controller instead of an additional sata controller that adds cost and runs on top of an internal pci express bus...
Going direct likely cuts the cost, complexity, and power requirements down significantly.
I also think this could be leveraged against non direct storage applications. Miniature wireless short range transmission systems, etc. would better benefit from a direct bus specification.

I support this and think its a great move. Hopefully it leverages CF in a way that makes it more competitive to sdhc in the consumer sector. It would likely not result in backwards compatibility however.


Professional Cameras
By EJ257 on 11/30/2010 1:40:21 PM , Rating: 1
I thought all professional cameras have RAM to hold (temporarily) the frames shot in burst and then write to the storage card. So if they want to take larger resolution frames and be able to shoot more burst frames shouldn't they be putting more RAM on their cameras instead of a storage card with a faster interface? I mean sure you'll be able to write all that data from the RAM to the card that much faster so you have shorter down time but ultimately how many frames you can shoot in burst mode depends on how much RAM you got right?




RE: Professional Cameras
By namechamps on 11/30/2010 2:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and no. Most cameras have a buffer for short high burst shooting but they also have a continuous burst mode which is limited only to the speed of the card. However the idea that we need an entirely new card to support faster continuous burst is silly.

Say some future cameras was 30MP with 50MB raw file size. Say also you want to be able to shoot something insane 10 shots per second continuously until card fills up (40,000 shots on 2TB card). That would require roughly 500MB/sec of throughput. Current SDXC standard supports up to 2.4GB/sec throughput and 2TB card size. That is fast enough for any conceivable photo or video need. how about recording raw 1080p stereoscopic (to capture 3D) in 36bit deep color at 120 fps. No problem that is about 2.2GB/sec.

Now it is possible that raw NAND flash will never get that fast but if it does the SDXC format will be able to handle it. There is absolutely no reason for another standard. Competing standards only help to enrich the pockets of IP holders while fragmenting the market.


RE: Professional Cameras
By Solandri on 12/1/2010 1:53:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Now it is possible that raw NAND flash will never get that fast but if it does the SDXC format will be able to handle it. There is absolutely no reason for another standard. Competing standards only help to enrich the pockets of IP holders while fragmenting the market.

SD is actually one of the formats which has IP holders collecting royalties for every card made. The CompactFlash spec is royalty-free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#Compar...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#Openne...
http://www.compactflash.org/faqs/faq.htm#What_is_a...


4GB limit
By ionoxx on 11/30/2010 1:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
My concern is not so much speed as the 4GB limit on the FAT filesystem used on these cards. When using a DSLR to record videos, you run into that limit rather quickly in 1080p.




RE: 4GB limit
By poundsmack on 11/30/2010 2:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
And that's why exFAT is being used on these larger cards. Here is a copy/paste from wikipedia for you:

The advantages over previous File Allocation Table (FAT) file system versions include:

Scalability to large disk sizes: 64 ZiB[11] theoretical max, 512 TiB recommended max, raised from the 2 TiB limit of FAT32 partitions. Note that the built-in Windows XP format utility limits new FAT32 partitions to 32 GiB.[1]

Cluster size up to 32 MiB[1]

Subdirectory size up to 256 MiB[1]

File size limit of 16 EiB[12] (Limited by volume size), raised from close to 4 GiB in FAT32[1]

Free space allocation and delete performance improved due to introduction of a free space bitmap

Support for up to 2,796,202 files per subdirectory,[2][13] increased from 65,536

Support for access control lists (not supported yet in Windows Vista SP1)[14]

Support for TFAT, a transactional file system standard (optionally WinCE activated function)

Provision for OEM-definable parameters to customize the file system for specific device characteristics

Support for UTC timestamps (starting with Vista SP2)[15]

Timestamp granularity of 10 ms (better than previous FAT versions' 2 s, but worse than NTFS's 100 ns)[2]


RE: 4GB limit
By namechamps on 11/30/2010 2:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
That is more a limiting of existing hardware. SDXC supports exFat filesystem which allows 128PB. (128,000 TB). Given SDXC only supports max card size of 2TB (eventually) this means there is essentially no file size limit. You can fill any SDXC card formatted to exFAT with one giant file.

Of course OEM will need to add support for exFAT to their new products and they tend to not be very forward looking when it comes to things like this.

Sadly all is needed is a video recorder with proper firmware and SDXC card. Wonder how long it will take to get implemented.


meh....
By GruntboyX on 11/30/2010 12:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
an interesting development. But I kinda like how the industry is standardizing around SD cards. Besides faster and higher burst rates will only promote more spraying and praying photography.




RE: meh....
By namechamps on 11/30/2010 12:25:55 PM , Rating: 1
I have to agree. SD is fast enough, cheap enough, and nearly universally supported. Virtually all devices today which have a media slot have at least SD. Even Sony who still puts MemoryStick junk on everything has (partially) capitulated and added SD slot on its cameras released this year.

We don't need another memory format. SDHC handles media up to 32GB (which is fine for most applications. SDXC extends that to 2TB. Both support UHS-1 with theoretical max of 100MB/sec

If more speed is needed SDXC has an optional mode with up to 2.4GB/sec however that causes SDXC to lose backwards compatibility with SHDC.

Note no existing flash card has anywhere this level of performance but the standard allows it thus there is no need for an "improved" Compact Flash which on paper is equal to SDXC and will only serve to fragment the market.


RE: meh....
By Solandri on 12/1/2010 1:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
The bus may be able to handle that speed, but the SD card itself cannot typically deliver as much speed as CF. The extra space on the CF card lets you put in fancier controllers and memory schemes. In terms of speed, SD cards lag behind CF by about a year. The fastest SD cards so far are about 80-90 MB/sec announced a couple months ago. CF cards hit 80-90 MB/sec last year.

The main reason to update the CF spec is because the max capacity of the current spec is 128 GB. CF cards hitting that cap have already been out for a few years, while SDXC (needed for >32 GB capacity) didn't see any products out until this year. SD is fine for consumer grade stuff, but with the speeds and capacities a lot of pros use, the extra overhead in speed and size from CF is worth it. The larger size can actually be an advantage too. On the photo forums, a large majority of pros prefer over CF over SD because they're really uncomfortable with putting several hundred or thousand dollars worth of shooting on something the size of a postage stamp.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki