Thread

1. publlus_enigma · 1789604623 · focus · HN ↗

   There are four times in my life I have suffered regrettable data loss incidents.

   The first was when the telephone pole outside our house was struck directly by lightning. Not only was it the loudest thing I have ever heard, the current surged through the telephone line, into the internal fax modem, and fries everything within its vicinity. I was 10. I did have backuos, but only only floppy and they didn't cover everything.

   The second was storing data in OneDrive - a change to their terms surrounding "lifetime" unlikely noted storage, combined with a client that was unusably slow to download and a deadline for data retrieval meant that I lost most of my files.

   The third was SD card failure in digital camera on holiday, the controller chip died catastrophically, leaving the card completely unrecognised. It was a brand new Sony 128GB card, manufactured by Toshiba, and it seemed to be a common issue. I now shoot to two cards simultaneously.

   And the fourth time was ... Performing a backup. An errant script deleted the source content, but I'd also deleted the existing backup to free up space for the new backup. I've been weary of using rewritable media for some time now as a consequence, but I think backups themselves are high risk activities.

   1. Forgeties79 · 1789605756 · focus · HN ↗

      >I now shoot 2 cards simultaneously

      A very lovely change over the last 8 years or so lol. I came up in film during the DSLR revolution. 5D2’s/7D’s/Rebels (i series) years.

      8bit 420 nasty aliasing recording on single cards and praying baby. Magic lantern booted on those same SD’s!

      1. jeffbee · 1789608320 · focus · HN ↗

         Mainstream DSLRs with dual card slots came out 22 years ago.

         1. jimmaswell · 1789611569 · focus · HN ↗

            I would hope they have some feature for automatic backup to your phone over bluetooth or such today.

            1. jeffbee · 1789611877 · focus · HN ↗

               WiFi is a little faster I guess? In the primitive days people used the EyeFi.

               1. jimmaswell · 1789615821 · focus · HN ↗

                  You would often not have wifi available, and you wouldn't want to have to type in wifi passwords to your camera all the time. But your phone will almost always be nearby and persistent bluetooth is easy.

                  1. toast0 · 1789618752 · focus · HN ↗

                     Wifi between your camera and the phone. Or your camera and a laptop in your bag or whatever...

                     1. Gigachad · 1789631853 · focus · HN ↗

                        Problem is they have to disconnect from the current wifi ap to connect to the cameras ap which is inconvenient and means there can’t be a constant connection.

                        Wifi NAN could be used to solve this problem but I’ve not seen anything using it. Apple only just added support last year though.

            2. dsego · 1789617768 · focus · HN ↗

               They do transfer, but it's not automatic.

               1. robmccoll · 1789618389 · focus · HN ↗

                  My Nikon ZF transfers to my phone through Nikon's SnapBridge app automatically.

                  1. dsego · 1789618972 · focus · HN ↗

                     Oh, that's cool, kudos to Nikon, could be a good reason to switch over from Fuji.
            3. mrheosuper · 1789627061 · focus · HN ↗

               Bluetooth is slow. The transport is 3Mbps at max, if you subtract all the headers from different layers, you may have like 1.5-2Mbps practical transfer speed.

               1. Dylan16807 · 1789628577 · focus · HN ↗

                  Sounds like the "or such" wins, but even with bluetooth speeds that means you're backing up 1-5 photos per minute and that helps a lot.

                  1. mrheosuper · 1789634063 · focus · HN ↗

                     And harm a lot too, you phone can't deep sleep since it has to wake up periodically to process data from bluetooth stack. Combined with slow transfer speed, that gonna eat your battery like nothing.

                     1. Dylan16807 · 1789637701 · focus · HN ↗

                        Playing audio over bluetooth also wakes things periodically, but it uses almost no power. With a similarly competent design photo transfer should be very battery efficient.

                        1. mrheosuper · 1789647163 · focus · HN ↗

                           No, most(if not all) bluetooth controller has audio offload, basically the cpu does not involve(or very little) when transfering data from storage to radio.

                           1. Dylan16807 · 1789669976 · focus · HN ↗

                              Don't you mean yes bluetooth controllers have audio offload? "similarly competent design" means you do the exact same thing in the other direction. Instead of rarely waking up the CPU to coordinate sending, you rarely wake it up to coordinate receiving.
                        2. [deleted] · 1789687350 · focus · HN ↗

                           [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.