Post by: RHPConsult on June 07, 2007, 09:12:20 AM
This task with our scanned photos has two goals: a PowerPoint slide show for a 90 birthday celebration planned for my son-in-law's grandmother AND putting those same photos in a digital picture frame for her to enjoy after the party is over.
Now, here’s the really curious bump in that road, for me at least. My daughter has assembled and prepared about 150 pics for display in the frame. I started last evening to load them on a 2-GB Kingston SD card. However, “it’ (the card) stopped receiving at about 90 (roughly 15 MB worth) declaring that insufficient “free space” was available for loading more! Oh yeah, only 1,950 MB, I would estimate, remaining to be used. Those 90 displayed quite nicely, however, when we tested them.
Since this SD card has been used before in other devices, I am assuming that the card probably needs to be formatted, to somehow "recover" the missing capacity. But . . .
Question 1: Why would/did the card balk at swallowing such a tiny portion of its recognized/declared capacity?
Question 2: How does one reformat an SD card? The Brookstone digital picture fame has no built-in mechanism to accomplish such an action, that I can find. When the card's icon appears on my desktop (in my ZIO multi-card reader), of course, there is the possibility of erasing the tiny “drive” in DiskUtility, but what about re-formatting? Is that some kind of a generic process, so to speak, as far as anyone knows, that DisUtility can accomplish with ease? I certainly don’t want to render the card unusable for the picture frame. It seems like a no-brainer, but I’ve gotten in trouble in the past believing such things!!
Help, again! Please.
Post by: tacit on June 07, 2007, 09:37:05 AM
Post by: RHPConsult on June 07, 2007, 11:20:21 AM
That's a relief.
Any idea what might possibly be "going-on" in that tiny card soSrtu that it won't accept but a minor fraction of its capacity?
Stuff Happens?
Post by: RNKIII on June 07, 2007, 11:28:23 AM
From the digital photography class I recently took.. I know that the photo quantity 'capacity' for SD cards varies widely based on the 'size'/pixel count of the photos being placed on them...
Are all the photos the same size??? Are they all "large" or could they be 'reduced' in size/pixel count?? This may help increase the count capacity..
But, then again, what do I know?!?!?
Bob K. rnkiii
Post by: RHPConsult on June 07, 2007, 11:53:11 AM
Harv speculated about something like that this morniing in a sidebar conversation. We also wondered if perhaps Brookstone has some kind of built-in limit in it's device.
Would you guess from your "academic" endeavors, that a 4 gig card would "acceot" twice as many pixels as my present 2 gig puppy.
Here's where I am now:
- The reformatting went w/o incident. . . . consuming, oh, 8 seconds!
- The default formatting in DiskUtility was precisely as Tacit recommended.
- I have again tried to upload the desired 151 photos, however precisely the same 90 that "filled-it" last night (with 1,940+ MBs "available") did it again.
- All photos are between 200 and 300 kb, mostly identical, the differences being primarily square vs rectangular. b/w vs color. Many extend bak 50-75 years, though all seemingly scanned reasonably well.
- Too many pixels, rather than too many kbs appear to be the answer.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 07, 2007, 02:49:20 PM
The fact that the card is what is refusing to accept any more files while connected to your computer, I assume, may simply be a limit to the 'fixed/hard-wired' directory blocks of the card. It probably has absolutely nothing to do with picture frame display. I'd suggest contacting the maker of the card and ask why they are fraudulently advertising greater capacity than is actually possible!
Post by: gunug on June 07, 2007, 03:39:32 PM
Post by: Jack W on June 07, 2007, 03:45:55 PM
Are you trying to use this card on a Mac, or a DC or something else?
If you are only going to use it on your Mac, I would suggest formatting it with Disk Utility in HFS+ format.
I've got a 2GB CF card and a 2GB SD card that I have done this with on my G4 and they work great. No problems at all loading to full capacity.
If you mount it on your computer, check to make sure the trash is empty.
If you are going to use them in a digi cam, then format them in the camera.
HTH, Jack
Post by: Paddy on June 07, 2007, 03:52:28 PM
Post by: RHPConsult on June 07, 2007, 04:47:49 PM
Reformatting went uneventfully, according to Tacit's advice.
It's RNKIII's experience that's seems to be dispositive.
Yes, ABD, I am inquiring of Brookstone, SanDisk and Kingston. (Film @ Eleven)
Jack: See my question Nr 2 in my initiating post: It's for a Brookstone digital picture fame that has no abilities other than projecting what's on one of several alternative types of cards.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 07, 2007, 05:14:12 PM
QUOTE
It's for a Brookstone digital picture fame that has no abilities other than [displaying] what's on one of several alternative types of cards.
Maybe you just need to hang the frame on a larger wall! 
Post by: RHPConsult on June 07, 2007, 07:07:36 PM
SanDisk TechSupport has made the following declarations to me "over the phone" re: the number of photos that may be stashed on 3 sizes of its SD cards. He wanted to know how many megapixels were resident in "my" camera" and it took awhile (3 repetitions) to convince him I was calling about a digital picture frame display not a digital camera.
Since our varied picture collection - age 2-3 months to 75+ years or so - are mostly 72 dpi (with some up to 120) and all are now 4x6 mol after scanning, I was interested that I had already empirically tested one of his assertions . . . I guess.
Over the past few days, I always got 90 pics onto the 2 GB SanDisk card (in 3 repetitions). SanDisk "guarantees" 87, I am told.
Interestingly, there is a rough linear relation between 1 gig "capacity" @ 43 pics and 2 gigs @ 87 pics and 4 gigs @ 175 pics.
This should should enliven your dinner table conversation(s)
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 07, 2007, 08:38:31 PM
I might call Kingston back and ask for another opinion. While the dpi is certainly an important factor in the size of the image file, it is more important to know the total pixels in it. Simply place all the images in one folder and do a "Get Info" on it. This should give you a better idea of the total bytes of all those images. If that, indeed, is similar to what the card claims it can hold, then the 'space remaining' value is simply bogus.
That being said...
It looks like your only solution will be to reduce the 'quality' of every image. Don't worry about doing this all in one swell foop, however. Here's a suggested test procedure:
1. Create a testing folder ( in the same folder as the current images is fine).
2. Option-drag a random selection of say 10 of those images into that new folder.
3. Do a "Get Info" on the folder and note the size.
4. Open Elements and try the "Process Multiple Files..." in the File menu. You should be able to select a lower quality jpeg ( 70% ) and have all those 10 images saved in the new 'quality'. Wouldn't hurt to have a logical pre/suffix added to each name.
5. Do another "Get Info" on the folder with just the newly saved batch of images. You are shooting for a value that will allow the whole batch of images to be placed on the card, of course.
Post by: ClayEM on June 08, 2007, 07:08:21 AM
QUOTE(RHPConsult @ Jun 7 2007, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The family “project” that generated my now-resolved PSE3 query yesterday, has produced some additional fallout that is equally puzzling. . . perhaps more so. Here.
This task with our scanned photos has two goals: a PowerPoint slide show for a 90 birthday celebration planned for my son-in-law's grandmother AND putting those same photos in a digital picture frame for her to enjoy after the party is over.
Now, here’s the really curious bump in that road, for me at least. My daughter has assembled and prepared about 150 pics for display in the frame. I started last evening to load them on a 2-GB Kingston SD card. However, “it’ (the card) stopped receiving at about 90 (roughly 15 MB worth) declaring that insufficient “free space” was available for loading more! Oh yeah, only 1,950 MB, I would estimate, remaining to be used. Those 90 displayed quite nicely, however, when we tested them.
Since this SD card has been used before in other devices, I am assuming that the card probably needs to be formatted, to somehow "recover" the missing capacity. But . . .
Question 1: Why would/did the card balk at swallowing such a tiny portion of its recognized/declared capacity?
Question 2: How does one reformat an SD card? The Brookstone digital picture fame has no built-in mechanism to accomplish such an action, that I can find. When the card's icon appears on my desktop (in my ZIO multi-card reader), of course, there is the possibility of erasing the tiny “drive” in DiskUtility, but what about re-formatting? Is that some kind of a generic process, so to speak, as far as anyone knows, that DisUtility can accomplish with ease? I certainly don’t want to render the card unusable for the picture frame. It seems like a no-brainer, but I’ve gotten in trouble in the past believing such things!!
Help, again! Please.
This task with our scanned photos has two goals: a PowerPoint slide show for a 90 birthday celebration planned for my son-in-law's grandmother AND putting those same photos in a digital picture frame for her to enjoy after the party is over.
Now, here’s the really curious bump in that road, for me at least. My daughter has assembled and prepared about 150 pics for display in the frame. I started last evening to load them on a 2-GB Kingston SD card. However, “it’ (the card) stopped receiving at about 90 (roughly 15 MB worth) declaring that insufficient “free space” was available for loading more! Oh yeah, only 1,950 MB, I would estimate, remaining to be used. Those 90 displayed quite nicely, however, when we tested them.
Since this SD card has been used before in other devices, I am assuming that the card probably needs to be formatted, to somehow "recover" the missing capacity. But . . .
Question 1: Why would/did the card balk at swallowing such a tiny portion of its recognized/declared capacity?
Question 2: How does one reformat an SD card? The Brookstone digital picture fame has no built-in mechanism to accomplish such an action, that I can find. When the card's icon appears on my desktop (in my ZIO multi-card reader), of course, there is the possibility of erasing the tiny “drive” in DiskUtility, but what about re-formatting? Is that some kind of a generic process, so to speak, as far as anyone knows, that DisUtility can accomplish with ease? I certainly don’t want to render the card unusable for the picture frame. It seems like a no-brainer, but I’ve gotten in trouble in the past believing such things!!
Help, again! Please.
Dick,
Have you tried putting the card in a camera and reformatting it?
Seems like I remember having problems with a SD card I had erased on my computer and the camera format straightened it out.
Just a thought,
Clay
Post by: RHPConsult on June 08, 2007, 01:56:44 PM
Nice to see you around these parts, again.
The reformatting went quite smoothly via Disk Utility.
The remaining puzzle is the accuracy of the data with respect to "capacity" when dealing with image files rather than MB/GB of Text files.
Working' on it.
Thanks
Post by: RHPConsult on June 08, 2007, 03:05:06 PM
Curiouser and curiouser.
Report Nr. 1 was from SanDisk. This one, as prompted by ABS's interest and enthusiasm, is based on a just-completed call to Kingston.
Caveat: Absent Tacit's confirmation here, you sortof pays yer money and takes yer choice(s).
Kingston seems to make sense with the following
The SD card's "capacity", I am now told, is more likely attenuated because those first 90 pics that consistently – through 3 complete reformats – seemed to fill-up 2 gigs of memory with <20 megs of images for the reason that their file names were more than 8 characters long!
"But, but," sez I, "I'm a Macster . I don't do short file names! Never have"
"Yes," says Kingston "but it's not a Mac formatted disk." I (learned that a day or so ago here from Tacit's posting) "Therefore you will have to shorten the titles. But, then even a one gig card will hold at least 256 images – more if you put them in a folder."
So, as soon as I "adjust" the file titles to fit M$' ancient proclivities, we'll see if this hypothesis works. If it does, then the problem is solved and we don't need no stinkin' new disk!
Hard to believe that so much non-information is out and about . . .well, maybe not.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 08, 2007, 05:41:34 PM
And I believe the name can actually be 8 + 3 characters; eight letters/numbers plus the 3 letter "jpg" or whatever format they are. And DO NOT forget the "." separating the 8 character name and the 3 letter suffix. Remember, this is probably even a DOS-based System in the Picture Frame, it's even dumber than Windows!
Post by: RHPConsult on June 08, 2007, 07:58:19 PM
I think I'll be able to make reasonably effective "bobtailing" of the lot of them, by tried-and-true method of "inspection". But thanks for the PSE suggestion. I was not aware of its availability.
Kingston told me, as you too suggest, about the DOS "corruption" (my word) of the workings of the frame. Oh my!
I'm just hoping that Kingston actually knows more about it's business than Mujibor apparently knew about SanDisk's, with respect to this renaming doing the trick.
I really would be interested just how many TeeEssers (with frames) are aware of this hidden limitation/trick/whatever.
Shame on you Brookstone!
Thanks.
Post by: krissel on June 08, 2007, 08:58:02 PM
Post by: RHPConsult on June 08, 2007, 10:18:48 PM
2. It also has the following slots:
- SD
- MMC
- MS
- SM
- CF
- MD
- USB Stick
It was purchased within the past several weeks.
Post by: RHPConsult on June 09, 2007, 12:52:08 PM
Successful? Well . . . partially.
I/we now have 151 images (as described above) for which we have replaced their Mac-like file titles with DOS' splendid 8-character limitation.
Howsomever, attempting to load them on a 2 gig SD card for the digital picture frame (as Kingston promised yesterday) resulted in raising the total (before stalling) only from 89 to 124. That's much better but not what was promised (or hoped/intended), so I'll go back to Kingston on Monday. This is a 90-year-old's birthday present, after all, so we want it perfect..
Clearly the 8-character scheme was the key. There was one item (around Nr 105) where we mistakenly left 9 characters in the title, and that led to an immediate stall while loading up the card in the ZIO reader. Changing that one to 8 characters solved that, but then the next stall came at 124.
Accordingly, I took Nr. 124, used it to replace one much lower in the roster and it loaded promptly. Tested several others (over position 124) the same way to the same end.
Still curious why the 2 gig card won't take more.
Also interesting . . . ain't nobody out there have no digital frame with some useful ideas/experience to contribute???
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 09, 2007, 04:41:15 PM
Post by: RHPConsult on June 09, 2007, 09:52:02 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 10, 2007, 01:29:37 PM
QUOTE(RHPConsult @ Jun 9 2007, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
32.2 MB
As the Myth Busters say, "Well there's your problem!" Everyone knows that the filing system takes 1,961.9MBs ( roughly )! 1.961.9 + 32.2 = 2,000.1 MBs. Since you only have 2,000 MBs, your a bit shy of a load! 
Maybe if you cut those 8 + 3 names down to 4 + 3, you could get it to accept everything!
Post by: RHPConsult on June 10, 2007, 02:44:59 PM
QUOTE
[Maybe if you cut those 8 + 3 names down . . .
I meant mention my "discovery", in that connection.Tthe dot/jpg is apparently "automatic" via VueScan on the HP DeskJet. When I tried to add it, as I was renaming all the image files, they then absolutely wouldn't load onto the card.
Must the "in there" somehow, but not by my hand, or within my intellectual capacity!
More
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 11, 2007, 02:02:24 PM
Post by: RHPConsult on June 11, 2007, 02:09:58 PM
QUOTE
You probably have told Tiger not to display those suffix parts.
Everything, everywhere shows its suffix.
