I have 90mb worth of photos that I want to put on a 128mb SD card. Why won't the SD card take them?!!! I'm trying to send grandma some photos for a digital photo frame.
1) I take a bunch of photos and batch resized them in CS3 to the tiny photo frame size.
2) I drag them onto the card (which I have even erased thoroughly w/disk utility) and I get an error saying "not enough free space to copy xxxxx.jpg" - the funny thing, its just one random file of the 200 or so that comes up as the named file in that message.
3) I click OK on the error, and then the copy dialogue comes up anyway and says "copying x of 200"... only it just copies about the first 80 or so. It does this consistently, only the first 83 files make it over, and the 84th is corrupted. Finder window then still says "80mb available" on the card.
4) Its not the card, I can take 120mb of random other files (movies, word files, etc) and fill it right up, no problems.
WHAT is going on with these photos that I batch??? I have tried using CocoThumbX to strip extra crap, I have tried adding a "save for web" step to my batch resize to strip off exif and all that junk as well.
I just don't get it. This is the second time this has happened. Last time I just gave up and only sent grandma the 80 files that it would take.
Does the card report 128mb free after formating? There may be a hidden file,or if it is an older card, it may have some wear that reduces the full capacity.
Finally, and this has happened to me before, if the card is formatted FAT, there may be a problem with the filename, since FAT perfers 8.3 file names.
Doc, I'll bet you any amount of money the Mac can't see the files. So you really don't have the memory space, you just can't see the PC or camera created files.
I had the same issues w/ an old flash drive before I figured out the how/whys of pc/mac.
Load your card onto a PC and you'll see files that weren't there before. And for some strange reason, even formatting won't remove them unless you use a third party app specifically for formatting.
OK searched this thread, and found that most who use virtualization to run Windows on OS X seem to be favoring VMWare Fusion. But Parallels is really appealing to me for its integration, file sharing and launching of windows apps via preferences.
I have Office 2007, Quicken and PS CS2 for Windows. I will NOT be buying the Mac version of Office, nor trading in my CS2, and of course Quicken is really not an option on the Mac. So I am thinking to use Parallels.
Why does everyone seem to like VMWare better? If you believe this MacTech article, Parallels outperforms VMWare easily running XP. Am I missing something?
We at Smug were heavy users of parallels then switched fully to VMware Fusion. I love it. No more Parallels for this boy. VMware for months and months so far, no crashes, no problems, it just works.
We at Smug were heavy users of parallels then switched fully to VMware Fusion. I love it. No more Parallels for this boy. VMware for months and months so far, no crashes, no problems, it just works.
So Andy, does that mean Parallels doesn't work and crashes? Why the switch?
So Andy, does that mean Parallels doesn't work and crashes? Why the switch?
I've posted about it a lot. Work? Yeah I'm sure it works. But VMware works better for us. Start up and shut down is way faster. Stable. As I posted, my many VMs never, ever crash my Mac. Not so with Parallels before we switched.
So Andy, does that mean Parallels doesn't work and crashes? Why the switch?
Parallels plays a bit more "fast and loose" with things than does VMWare. VMWare does *extensive* QA cycles for their products, and sometimes is slower to adopt features. This is because historically they've sold business products that have to run all day long on servers. Business-critical QA is in their DNA.
Parallels moves more like a consumer products company, meaning faster to market with more features is what people (consumers) typically want, at the expense of finding more bugs.
Would you pay the same for a product that came out later, and was maybe a bit slower, if it were more stable? Depends on what you want.
I mean, would people pay more and shop elsewhere for products than Wal-mart, if quality were higher? Many people in the US would not. I most certainly would :-)
I just don't get it. This is the second time this has happened. Last time I just gave up and only sent grandma the 80 files that it would take.
Have you considered the relationship between the filesystem block size and size of the files?
Case in point, say you use FAT16 which commonly has a cluster size of 32K. Say your photos are all 35K in size... every one of them will use 2 clusters, so 10 images will consume 640K of disk space, even if they only appear to consume 350K of space when you list them out. Now when you dropped on other files, such as a large movie that is 623K, it will use the same 640K of space. Basically, every *file* is rounded *up* to a multiple of the cluster size. This can lead to a lot of wasted space if the size of the files are just slightly larger than the size of the cluster. This is rarely a problem in camera, when we're talking about multi-meg images, but I'm betting you are resampling these image down to the size of the display in the photoframe so that you can fit as many as possible... which is going to magnify the problem.
I mean, would people pay more and shop elsewhere for products than Wal-mart, if quality were higher? Many people in the US would not. I most certainly would :-)
I suspect everyone on *this* thread would.
That said, I recently picked up VMWare Fusion based in part on the glowing recommendations of Andy and others. So far I've not been at all impressed. The two VMs I have that I brought over from VMWare Workstation on Linux have had serious kkeyyybooaaadd sttutteerrrinngs which has meant I've been unable to login to them to reconfigure the network. (After trying to almost 2 hours I managed to successfully blind type and backspace out the dupicates in the login password for my account, I've now put in almost an hour trying to blind type root's password for an su - session.) A downloaded VM from their application gallery has behaved the same, I just downloaded a live cd iso for DSL to try creating a brand new VM to see if it has the same issues. VMWare support site hasn't been much help... they seem to want me to buy a support incident to get them to help me.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
ok..ive got a new phone (nokia 6110) Ive no idea if its compatable with a mac. the manual just says 'a compatible computer'. Ive tried loading the software supplied with the phone & it appeared to reject it.
Im trying to download a photo from the phone so where do i look for it on the mac once they are connected via USB ?
On the PC it was simply seen as a drive & you go in there.
** EDIT. I got it...had to download some crap. Its working on toothless atm & i have no possible idea how i did it but working none the less.
Stuck again. I have blue toothed the photo to iphoto (apparently) and now i wish to open the photo in CS3. Where the bloody hell is iphoto ???
I open file in CS3 to look & cant see iphoto anywhere ?
It is easier to push from iphoto to photoshop. Open iPhoto, find the image, right click, show file. That will open a finder window with your files, probably in Pictures/iPhoto Library/ somewhere.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
It is easier to push from iphoto to photoshop. Open iPhoto, find the image, right click, show file. That will open a finder window with your files, probably in Pictures/iPhoto Library/ somewhere.
Tks...that isnt working because when i do that i can see the option you mention but i cant click on it (its not highlighting). The only option i can right click on is 'show photo info'
I ended up getting it just then. I managed to somehow copy it to my desktop (my desktop is my filing bin believe it or not) & i opened it from the desktop.
That said, I recently picked up VMWare Fusion based in part on the glowing recommendations of Andy and others. So far I've not been at all impressed. The two VMs I have that I brought over from VMWare Workstation on Linux have had serious kkeyyybooaaadd sttutteerrrinngs which has meant I've been unable to login to them to reconfigure the network. (After trying to almost 2 hours I managed to successfully blind type and backspace out the dupicates in the login password for my account, I've now put in almost an hour trying to blind type root's password for an su - session.) A downloaded VM from their application gallery has behaved the same, I just downloaded a live cd iso for DSL to try creating a brand new VM to see if it has the same issues. VMWare support site hasn't been much help... they seem to want me to buy a support incident to get them to help me.
Bummer. I created my VM from scratch and it's fairly minimalist (I only run Quicken because their Mac version is horrible, as well as SRM Power Meter software and some other stuff called "Training Peaks" which is Windows only). So I haven't had the fun of trying a VM pulled over from Linux.
Have you considered the relationship between the filesystem block size and size of the files?
Case in point, say you use FAT16 which commonly has a cluster size of 32K. Say your photos are all 35K in size... every one of them will use 2 clusters, so 10 images will consume 640K of disk space, even if they only appear to consume 350K of space when you list them out. Now when you dropped on other files, such as a large movie that is 623K, it will use the same 640K of space. Basically, every *file* is rounded *up* to a multiple of the cluster size. This can lead to a lot of wasted space if the size of the files are just slightly larger than the size of the cluster. This is rarely a problem in camera, when we're talking about multi-meg images, but I'm betting you are resampling these image down to the size of the display in the photoframe so that you can fit as many as possible... which is going to magnify the problem.
Those are just two images I grabbed that had the same number of blocks (first column) but wildly different sizes (6th column).
I knew someone would actually read my query and not just jump on the card and hidden files on it
OK, you nailed it. I've resized those jpgs and "magnified my problem". This makes sense, can I fix it? Is there another way to process those images, or are they truly just bigger than 128mb... you lost me on that.
I knew someone would actually read my query and not just jump on the card and hidden files on it
OK, you nailed it. I've resized those jpgs and "magnified my problem". This makes sense, can I fix it? Is there another way to process those images, or are they truly just bigger than 128mb... you lost me on that.
I guess the first thing I'd do is figure out if that really is the problem. A study of the ls -ls output for those files on the card should help figure it out. (on a linux box I'd say stat the file, but mac's stat isn't as useful from what I've seen.)
Assuming it is, there are a couple things to try:
reformat the card with smaller clusters / sectors. (not sure at the moment how to do that on a mac... I'll look around when I don't have the baby on my lap.)
try to shrink the images with the jpeg quality until they no longer waste as much space. (ugly. trial and error on an image by image basis.)
I've actually used a combination of the two for a similar purpose in the past. (iow: btdt)
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Oh, and Cabbey, the Stat info is all there in BSD(/Mac), just not as user friendly as it is in SysV. Actually, it's damn ugly in BSD if you don't format it, and I sure as **** don't know the format codes.
That stat info from the mac is just as useful, however significantly less user friendly. All of the information is there, just not labeled. (Joys of BSD vs. SysV)
Anywho, I agree, the ls -ls would be a good place to start... but that's a lot of math IMHO.
I'd use the disk utility to reformat the card. If you really are suffering from block issues (though I wouldn't imagine you'd be making your pictures THAT small, but I'm not sure), you can set your blocks size to itty-bitty. Makes things slower, but for what you are doing with the card it shouldn't matter that much.
HTH
After reading Cabbey's first post, I would have just tossed the card. Just reading it would have been more work than the card is worth.
After reading Cabbey's first post, I would have just tossed the card. Just reading it would have been more work than the card is worth.
But but... I STILL don't get how its the card??!!! I can fit 120mb worth of stuff on it, just not those images. I thought I had it, now you just confused me again.
And remember, it did this to me previously with another card, and another batch of images (same batch process, different image files). It MUST be something about the way I'm batching, saving, whatever these images, right?!?
edit: BTW, I just tried yet ANOTHER card w/twice the capacity, a 256. The EXACT thing happend - "not enough free space to copy image xxxx-083.jpg" then it only copied 83 of 200 images, just like with the other card. Its not the cards.
But but... I STILL don't get how its the card??!!! I can fit 120mb worth of stuff on it, just not those images. I thought I had it, now you just confused me again.
And remember, it did this to me previously with another card, and another batch of images (same batch process, different image files). It MUST be something about the way I'm batching, saving, whatever these images, right?!?
edit: BTW, I just tried yet ANOTHER card w/twice the capacity, a 256. The EXACT thing happend - "not enough free space to copy image xxxx-083.jpg" then it only copied 83 of 200 images, just like with the other card. Its not the cards.
Back to my theory, which you, ahem, overlooked. You have a corrupt file.
Back to my theory, which you, ahem, overlooked. You have a corrupt file.
Nope. If I clear the card, and just move photo 83, it works fine. More than just one corrupt file. Corrupt directory or process or something.
No matter what I do, I can only fit 83 of those files at a given time onto ANY card. So I have 306 total files... if try to copy paste 1-100, I end up with 1-83. If I do 200-300, you guessed it, 200-282. I even tried randomly selecting 20 here, 10 there, nope, doesn't matter, as long as I'm copying out of that directory, I can only paste 83 files. Again, ANY card, even tried my big 2gb card.
At this point your spending more time fixing it than if you just started from scratch.
But thats the thing... how else do you suggest I start? I've pretty much proved its a repeatable error with something CS3 or my computer in general is doing. So I should ignore that?
How else do i resize photos? I'm obviously not going to send full size jpgs out of my 30D for a photo frame that can only handle 720 x 480 pixels.
But thats the thing... how else do you suggest I start? I've pretty much proved its a repeatable error with something CS3 or my computer in general is doing. So I should ignore that?
How else do i resize photos? I'm obviously not going to send full size jpgs out of my 30D for a photo frame that can only handle 720 x 480 pixels.
Have you tried other methods besides cut/paste to move the files? It's a different process than if you drag and drop or use the Mac equivalent of "Send To"
Have you tried other methods besides cut/paste to move the files? It's a different process than if you drag and drop or use the Mac equivalent of "Send To"
Tried both ways, no diff.
Also just tried opening them all in Preview, select all, then "save selected" at a lower quality right onto the card. This gained me about 20 files, but the card still says "100mb available" and won't let me add anymore.
The strangest part, the mysterious 83 files... so if it was a space allocation thing as cabbey suggested, wouldn't you at least think I'd gain a number of files when I doubled the card size (from 128 to 256)? Well, it doesn't, only the magical 83 files will copy over.
I guess I give up again.
If my PC at work can do it tomorrow (got all the images, small versions, on my portable hard drive) then I'm burning my mock turtlenecks.
Oh, and Cabbey, the Stat info is all there in BSD(/Mac), just not as user friendly as it is in SysV. Actually, it's damn ugly in BSD if you don't format it, and I sure as **** don't know the format codes.
Actually, the formatting is what killed me. I've come to use the '-x' option to stat to get something 'readable' only that DROPS the one stat I was looking for! (how many blocks were used.) without the formatter it appears to be the 3rd from last item.
That's my BSD inspired MAC working from the internal HFS+ volume, let me copy that image over to a CF card in my usb reader which is formatted vfat (likely what Erik's card is formatted as well):
So on the CF Card the two machines agree that the file uses 5824 sectors (that's hardware sectors of 512 bytes) which vfat (the filesystem) turns into 91 32k clusters (each cluster is 64 sectors). This is MORE than what the same file used on HFS+ by 48 sectors... but that's because HFS+ is more efficient than FAT.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
OK, you nailed it. I've resized those jpgs and "magnified my problem". This makes sense, can I fix it? Is there another way to process those images, or are they truly just bigger than 128mb... you lost me on that.
Ok, so in the case I've done personally, these weren't images, they were audio clips... and the filesystem used much larger chunks (2M) so a file that was 1.9M vs 2.1M saved me a full 2M. In that case, I made more files fit by slightly reducing the quality of the files. 240kbit encoding instead of 256kbit for most of them, or in one case, 224kbit. The difference in audio quality was virtually un-noticable. I suggested the same thing for your images. Say you export it at the native resolution and a jpeg quality of 9 and it comes out as 35K, but you want it to fit in 1 cluster on the card, not 2... so re-export it with a quality of 8.... now it might be 29K instead. (there remains a question of if that image quality is acceptable to you... but hey, you've already squashed it down to what? 640x480? ) I do the same thing at work with binaries for embedded applications... only there we're doing much uglier things with objcopy and strip and other binary manipulation tools that... but I digress......
But thats the thing... how else do you suggest I start? I've pretty much proved its a repeatable error with something CS3 or my computer in general is doing. So I should ignore that?
I wouldn't, but then I'm a self confessed nerd about things like this.
Here's a small bit of shell script that will do the math for you to see how many sectors you're using, just pop open a shell and cd onto your card and plop this in:
n=0; ls -1s * | while read s junk ; do let n=$(($n + $s)); done ; echo $n
(note that that's "ell ess, dash one ess" now, as opposed to the "ell ess, dash ell ess" earlier)
A 128M flash drive is only going to have 262,144 sectors on it... minus partitioning overhead, minus filesystem overhead, I'd say around 260,000 is probably a safe assumption of what you'll have available to put files in.
Just to put a couple of the other theories to rest, while you're in that shell, this command will list out every file on the device... you can confirm for yourself that there's not (much) there that you don't expect.
find .
A couple files that Mac OS/X will create in your cards when you use finder are .DS_Store and (sometimes, but unlikely in your case) .localized. For your usage, I'd nuke both. Also good subjects for nukage, anything named .Trashes and .fseventsd (they're usually directories, so take everything below them too... and .fseventsd will be regenerated if you touch the fs after that, so make it your last step... at which point it doesn't really help much.
Now then, for corrupted files.... I assume you have a folder on your local system that has all of the original images you're trying to copy out there, cd into it and do this to convince yourself there's no underlying harddrive or filesystem issue:
If you see anything about I/O errors... then the concern over invalid files is legit. You can also do the above sector count here in this directory, you should be able to estimate it as follows: (total size reported by finder of all files / 512 ) + number of files. If that number comes out substantially different, then it's possible that you have a corrupted directory, or that whatever generated those images was very creatively written.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Comments
http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-SDSDB-512-A10-A11-512-Digital-Package/dp/B0000AKVJC/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1207997851&sr=8-2
sorry, couldn't resist.
Does the card report 128mb free after formating? There may be a hidden file,or if it is an older card, it may have some wear that reduces the full capacity.
Finally, and this has happened to me before, if the card is formatted FAT, there may be a problem with the filename, since FAT perfers 8.3 file names.
I think you've got a corrupt file. Try dragging all of them by that xxxx.jpg.
Or, try dragging in half. Then half of what remains, etc. If you can put 120mb of other files but not those 90, then it's corruption, I think.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I had the same issues w/ an old flash drive before I figured out the how/whys of pc/mac.
Load your card onto a PC and you'll see files that weren't there before. And for some strange reason, even formatting won't remove them unless you use a third party app specifically for formatting.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
So Andy, does that mean Parallels doesn't work and crashes? Why the switch?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Parallels plays a bit more "fast and loose" with things than does VMWare. VMWare does *extensive* QA cycles for their products, and sometimes is slower to adopt features. This is because historically they've sold business products that have to run all day long on servers. Business-critical QA is in their DNA.
Parallels moves more like a consumer products company, meaning faster to market with more features is what people (consumers) typically want, at the expense of finding more bugs.
Would you pay the same for a product that came out later, and was maybe a bit slower, if it were more stable? Depends on what you want.
I mean, would people pay more and shop elsewhere for products than Wal-mart, if quality were higher? Many people in the US would not. I most certainly would :-)
Have you considered the relationship between the filesystem block size and size of the files?
Case in point, say you use FAT16 which commonly has a cluster size of 32K. Say your photos are all 35K in size... every one of them will use 2 clusters, so 10 images will consume 640K of disk space, even if they only appear to consume 350K of space when you list them out. Now when you dropped on other files, such as a large movie that is 623K, it will use the same 640K of space. Basically, every *file* is rounded *up* to a multiple of the cluster size. This can lead to a lot of wasted space if the size of the files are just slightly larger than the size of the cluster. This is rarely a problem in camera, when we're talking about multi-meg images, but I'm betting you are resampling these image down to the size of the display in the photoframe so that you can fit as many as possible... which is going to magnify the problem.
Here's a real life example:
Those are just two images I grabbed that had the same number of blocks (first column) but wildly different sizes (6th column).
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
I suspect everyone on *this* thread would.
That said, I recently picked up VMWare Fusion based in part on the glowing recommendations of Andy and others. So far I've not been at all impressed. The two VMs I have that I brought over from VMWare Workstation on Linux have had serious kkeyyybooaaadd sttutteerrrinngs which has meant I've been unable to login to them to reconfigure the network. (After trying to almost 2 hours I managed to successfully blind type and backspace out the dupicates in the login password for my account, I've now put in almost an hour trying to blind type root's password for an su - session.) A downloaded VM from their application gallery has behaved the same, I just downloaded a live cd iso for DSL to try creating a brand new VM to see if it has the same issues. VMWare support site hasn't been much help... they seem to want me to buy a support incident to get them to help me.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Im trying to download a photo from the phone so where do i look for it on the mac once they are connected via USB ?
On the PC it was simply seen as a drive & you go in there.
** EDIT. I got it...had to download some crap. Its working on toothless atm & i have no possible idea how i did it but working none the less.
I open file in CS3 to look & cant see iphoto anywhere ?
It is easier to push from iphoto to photoshop. Open iPhoto, find the image, right click, show file. That will open a finder window with your files, probably in Pictures/iPhoto Library/ somewhere.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
I ended up getting it just then. I managed to somehow copy it to my desktop (my desktop is my filing bin believe it or not) & i opened it from the desktop.
Bummer. I created my VM from scratch and it's fairly minimalist (I only run Quicken because their Mac version is horrible, as well as SRM Power Meter software and some other stuff called "Training Peaks" which is Windows only). So I haven't had the fun of trying a VM pulled over from Linux.
OK, you nailed it. I've resized those jpgs and "magnified my problem". This makes sense, can I fix it? Is there another way to process those images, or are they truly just bigger than 128mb... you lost me on that.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Hey!
No Fair!
I read the whole thing....I'm just not that smart!
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I guess the first thing I'd do is figure out if that really is the problem. A study of the ls -ls output for those files on the card should help figure it out. (on a linux box I'd say stat the file, but mac's stat isn't as useful from what I've seen.)
Assuming it is, there are a couple things to try:
I've actually used a combination of the two for a similar purpose in the past. (iow: btdt)
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Oh, and Cabbey, the Stat info is all there in BSD(/Mac), just not as user friendly as it is in SysV. Actually, it's damn ugly in BSD if you don't format it, and I sure as **** don't know the format codes.
After reading Cabbey's first post, I would have just tossed the card. Just reading it would have been more work than the card is worth.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
And remember, it did this to me previously with another card, and another batch of images (same batch process, different image files). It MUST be something about the way I'm batching, saving, whatever these images, right?!?
edit: BTW, I just tried yet ANOTHER card w/twice the capacity, a 256. The EXACT thing happend - "not enough free space to copy image xxxx-083.jpg" then it only copied 83 of 200 images, just like with the other card. Its not the cards.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Back to my theory, which you, ahem, overlooked. You have a corrupt file.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
No matter what I do, I can only fit 83 of those files at a given time onto ANY card. So I have 306 total files... if try to copy paste 1-100, I end up with 1-83. If I do 200-300, you guessed it, 200-282. I even tried randomly selecting 20 here, 10 there, nope, doesn't matter, as long as I'm copying out of that directory, I can only paste 83 files. Again, ANY card, even tried my big 2gb card.
This is totally bizarre.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
How else do i resize photos? I'm obviously not going to send full size jpgs out of my 30D for a photo frame that can only handle 720 x 480 pixels.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Also just tried opening them all in Preview, select all, then "save selected" at a lower quality right onto the card. This gained me about 20 files, but the card still says "100mb available" and won't let me add anymore.
The strangest part, the mysterious 83 files... so if it was a space allocation thing as cabbey suggested, wouldn't you at least think I'd gain a number of files when I doubled the card size (from 128 to 256)? Well, it doesn't, only the magical 83 files will copy over.
I guess I give up again.
If my PC at work can do it tomorrow (got all the images, small versions, on my portable hard drive) then I'm burning my mock turtlenecks.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Actually, the formatting is what killed me. I've come to use the '-x' option to stat to get something 'readable' only that DROPS the one stat I was looking for! (how many blocks were used.) without the formatter it appears to be the 3rd from last item.
That's my BSD inspired MAC working from the internal HFS+ volume, let me copy that image over to a CF card in my usb reader which is formatted vfat (likely what Erik's card is formatted as well):
and to sanity check (for my sanity at least) here's that CF card moved to my GNU inspired Linux box:
So on the CF Card the two machines agree that the file uses 5824 sectors (that's hardware sectors of 512 bytes) which vfat (the filesystem) turns into 91 32k clusters (each cluster is 64 sectors). This is MORE than what the same file used on HFS+ by 48 sectors... but that's because HFS+ is more efficient than FAT.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Ok, so in the case I've done personally, these weren't images, they were audio clips... and the filesystem used much larger chunks (2M) so a file that was 1.9M vs 2.1M saved me a full 2M. In that case, I made more files fit by slightly reducing the quality of the files. 240kbit encoding instead of 256kbit for most of them, or in one case, 224kbit. The difference in audio quality was virtually un-noticable. I suggested the same thing for your images. Say you export it at the native resolution and a jpeg quality of 9 and it comes out as 35K, but you want it to fit in 1 cluster on the card, not 2... so re-export it with a quality of 8.... now it might be 29K instead. (there remains a question of if that image quality is acceptable to you... but hey, you've already squashed it down to what? 640x480?
I wouldn't, but then I'm a self confessed nerd about things like this.
Here's a small bit of shell script that will do the math for you to see how many sectors you're using, just pop open a shell and cd onto your card and plop this in:
(note that that's "ell ess, dash one ess" now, as opposed to the "ell ess, dash ell ess" earlier)
A 128M flash drive is only going to have 262,144 sectors on it... minus partitioning overhead, minus filesystem overhead, I'd say around 260,000 is probably a safe assumption of what you'll have available to put files in.
Just to put a couple of the other theories to rest, while you're in that shell, this command will list out every file on the device... you can confirm for yourself that there's not (much) there that you don't expect.
A couple files that Mac OS/X will create in your cards when you use finder are .DS_Store and (sometimes, but unlikely in your case) .localized. For your usage, I'd nuke both. Also good subjects for nukage, anything named .Trashes and .fseventsd (they're usually directories, so take everything below them too... and .fseventsd will be regenerated if you touch the fs after that, so make it your last step... at which point it doesn't really help much.
Now then, for corrupted files.... I assume you have a folder on your local system that has all of the original images you're trying to copy out there, cd into it and do this to convince yourself there's no underlying harddrive or filesystem issue:
You should see something like:
If you see anything about I/O errors... then the concern over invalid files is legit. You can also do the above sector count here in this directory, you should be able to estimate it as follows: (total size reported by finder of all files / 512 ) + number of files. If that number comes out substantially different, then it's possible that you have a corrupted directory, or that whatever generated those images was very creatively written.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/