| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 06:56:43 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> The SD standard says >33G should use exFAT, this is why many devices |
| 5 |
>>> state they only support cards up to 32G. The really mean they only |
| 6 |
>>> support FAT. My Dashcam is like this but it happily works with a 128G |
| 7 |
>>> card, once I reformatted it with FAT. |
| 8 |
>> Warning; that still does not change the fact that each individual file |
| 9 |
>> cannot exceed 4G in size on regular FAT. |
| 10 |
> That's right, but a device designed to work with only FAT should never |
| 11 |
> try to save larger files. Any such devices I have used tend to split |
| 12 |
> videos into chunks of 1GB or smaller. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So if I bought a 64GB card, I forced it to be formatted with FAT on say |
| 18 |
my Linux box here, it would work in my trail cameras anyway? It makes |
| 19 |
sense. It would seem it is more of a file system issue since accessing |
| 20 |
a device shouldn't be affected my its capacity, well, maybe some |
| 21 |
exceptions. My trail camera may only support FAT which is only found on |
| 22 |
32GB and smaller. I can get that. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
To be honest, even tho I leave that thing out there sometimes for months |
| 25 |
without checking it, and it takes a ton of pics, I don't recall it even |
| 26 |
going over a couple GBs or so. Even the one that takes videos doesn't |
| 27 |
store a lot of data. I don't think I'd buy that expensive a card but |
| 28 |
still, interesting that it is a option. I'm thinking even my Canon |
| 29 |
camera can handle this. That's a lot of pics tho. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I never thought about this this way. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Dale |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
:-) :-) |
Archives