FWIW, I down-graded back to the 2.3 build, which was working just fine for me.<br clear="all"><div><br></div><div><>< <>< <><</div><div>Bryce Schober</div><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Eric F <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:falkaholic@hotmail.com">falkaholic@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr">
I am having the exact problems as well. Can only get it running for a few mins if I start a new database, otherwise it crashes on launch. <br><br>Not sure how to troubleshoot either, just moved from the Linux version to windows. <br>
<br>Win7. <br><br>-Eric<br><br><div><div></div>> From: <a href="mailto:digikam-users-request@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users-request@kde.org</a><br>> Subject: Digikam-users Digest, Vol 80, Issue 50<br>> To: <a href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users@kde.org</a><br>
> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:00:05 +0000<br>> <br>> Send Digikam-users mailing list submissions to<br>> <a href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users@kde.org</a><br>> <br>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
> <a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users</a><br>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
> <a href="mailto:digikam-users-request@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users-request@kde.org</a><br>
> <br>> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>> <a href="mailto:digikam-users-owner@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users-owner@kde.org</a><br>> <br>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
> than "Re: Contents of Digikam-users digest..."<br>> <br>> <br>> Today's Topics:<br>> <br>> 1. batch rename (Andreas T. Ege)<br>> 2. Re: re JPEG lossiness, PNG (Simon Oosthoek)<br>
> 3. Where does "grouped" pictures dissapear? (Anders Lund)<br>> 4. Re: Where does "grouped" pictures dissapear? (Anders Lund)<br>> 5. Re: re JPEG lossiness, PNG (Remco Vi?tor)<br>> 6. Re: re JPEG lossiness, PNG (Andrew Goodbody)<br>
> 7. 2.5 windows build broken for me (Bryce Schober)<br>> <br>> <br>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 1<br>> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:20:00 +0000<br>
> From: "Andreas T. Ege" <<a href="mailto:andreas@spheniscid.net" target="_blank">andreas@spheniscid.net</a>><br>> To: <a href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users@kde.org</a><br>
> Subject: [Digikam-users] batch rename<br>> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4F1AE5B0.2060105@spheniscid.net" target="_blank">4F1AE5B0.2060105@spheniscid.net</a>><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed<br>
> <br>> Hello,<br>> <br>> when batch renaming files, I infrequently get the message 'file does not <br>> exist' after renaming 50-80% of the files, causing the batch to stop. <br>> Doesn't happen all the time, but sometimes I need 2-3 goes to rename <br>
> images in a folder. I usually use 'name-##[e]' to rename.<br>> Has just happened again on some 32 images, and I filed a bug report <br>> about it.<br>> <br>> And very rarely it happens, that the batch completely mixes up the file <br>
> order, renaming the images by some order I can't grasp.<br>> Haven't filed a bug report yet, has happened recently when I didn't have <br>> the time, and not since.<br>> <br>> -- <br>> Andreas Ege<br>
> <br>> 24 The Birches<br>> Shobdon<br>> Herefordshire HR6 9NG<br>> GB<br>> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B44.%280%297526.315292" value="+447526315292" target="_blank">+44.(0)7526.315292</a><br>
> Tel.: <a href="tel:%2B44.%280%291568.709166" value="+441568709166" target="_blank">+44.(0)1568.709166</a><br>> <a href="http://spheniscid.net" target="_blank">http://spheniscid.net</a><br>
> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 2<br>> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:58:22 +0100<br>> From: Simon Oosthoek <<a href="mailto:somlist@xs4all.nl" target="_blank">somlist@xs4all.nl</a>><br>
> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the<br>> power of open source <<a href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users@kde.org</a>><br>> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] re JPEG lossiness, PNG<br>
> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4F1B0ACE.8040407@xs4all.nl" target="_blank">4F1B0ACE.8040407@xs4all.nl</a>><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>> <br>> On 14/01/12 17:15, Jean-Fran?ois Rabasse wrote:<br>
> ><br>> > JPEG can compress in a lossless way, until the algorithm bumps against<br>> > some limits. GIF does so, PNG does so. But JPEG can boost compression<br>> > efficiency if the user accept some losses.<br>
> > That's what Marie-No?lle Augendre said, on this thread :<br>> > "I guess that to produce something smaller, you'll have to loose<br>> > something."<br>> > Definitely right, there's no magic at all, and Santa Claus doesn't<br>
> > exist:-)<br>> <br>> Maybe I've missed a part of the discussion, but the main concern with<br>> Jpeg is, AFAIK, that jpeg is 8-bits, so always loses something when<br>> using RAW as the reference, since RAW formats usually have 10-16 bits<br>
> per colour available as bandwidth and most SLR sensors have the ability<br>> to provide that dynamic range to a certain extend, converting from RAW<br>> to JPEG will at least cost you the difference in expressibility of<br>
> colour and brightness (e.g. 12 bits in RAW to JPEG: 4096 to 256 shades).<br>> Even if no loss was caused by the JPEG algorithm, JPEG loses something.<br>> <br>> This is why PNG and JPG2000 are popular choices; they allow 16-bit<br>
> values to be preserved and allow lossless compression (meaning it is<br>> reversible to "RAW" in theory)<br>> <br>> /Simon<br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 3<br>
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:09:48 +0100<br>> From: Anders Lund <<a href="mailto:anders@alweb.dk" target="_blank">anders@alweb.dk</a>><br>> To: <a href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users@kde.org</a><br>
> Subject: [Digikam-users] Where does "grouped" pictures dissapear?<br>> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:201201212009.48866.anders@alweb.dk" target="_blank">201201212009.48866.anders@alweb.dk</a>><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"<br>
> <br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> Using digikam 2.5 is mostly a pleasure, but sometimes it does not do what it <br>> is supposed to.<br>> <br>> For example, typically I edit a photo, importing the raw and proccessing it, <br>
> and then press "save changes". Sometimes this creates a new version in the <br>> photos version tab, but sometimes not.<br>> <br>> I dragged such a image onto the original, and accepted "group to here", and it <br>
> dissapeared... Where did it go? :0<br>> <br>> Oh, and the behavior when saving should be consistent!<br>> -- <br>> Anders<br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 4<br>
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:17:52 +0100<br>> From: Anders Lund <<a href="mailto:anders@alweb.dk" target="_blank">anders@alweb.dk</a>><br>> To: "digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the<br>
> power of open source" <<a href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users@kde.org</a>><br>> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] Where does "grouped" pictures dissapear?<br>> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:201201212017.52997.anders@alweb.dk" target="_blank">201201212017.52997.anders@alweb.dk</a>><br>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>> <br>> On L?rdag den 21. januar 2012, Anders Lund wrote:<br>> > Hi,<br>> > <br>> > Using digikam 2.5 is mostly a pleasure, but sometimes it does not do what<br>
> > it is supposed to.<br>> > <br>> > For example, typically I edit a photo, importing the raw and proccessing<br>> > it, and then press "save changes". Sometimes this creates a new version in<br>
> > the photos version tab, but sometimes not.<br>> > <br>> > I dragged such a image onto the original, and accepted "group to here", and<br>> > it dissapeared... Where did it go? :0<br>
> <br>
> Nm, I found it. But the behavior is odd. I created a new edit, and this time, <br>> it was added to the raw photo version tab, but it is displayed in a kind of <br>> layered display with the first edit, which is grouped with the raw but not <br>
> recognized as a version of that.<br>> <br>> > Oh, and the behavior when saving should be consistent!<br>> <br>> !<br>> <br>> -- <br>> Anders<br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>
> <br>> Message: 5<br>> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:49:57 +0100<br>> From: Remco Vi?tor <<a href="mailto:remco.vietor@wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">remco.vietor@wanadoo.fr</a>><br>> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the<br>
> power of open source <<a href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users@kde.org</a>><br>> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] re JPEG lossiness, PNG<br>> Message-ID: <1838203.pBcQ8o2xgG@manticore><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>> <br>> On Saturday 21 January 2012 19:58:22 Simon Oosthoek wrote:<br>> > This is why PNG and JPG2000 are popular choices; they allow 16-bit<br>
> > values to be preserved and allow lossless compression (meaning it is<br>> > reversible to "RAW" in theory)<br>> No, it is not: RAW files have as many pixels as the resulting PNG files (in <br>
> theorie at least), but each represents only one colour channel out of three <br>> (or four*). The different colours are arranged in a matrix (Bayer matrix), so <br>> that a square of 4 pixels has the three colours, with green being present <br>
> twice.<br>> To get the image on which we work (and which is stored as PNG or whatever), <br>> those colours are interpolated, so the original values are replaced by <br>> calculated values, and the missing colours are added for each pixel.Due to <br>
> this interpolation, there is no guarantee that you can recover the original <br>> values.<br>> <br>> Note that the term "lossless" as applied to a compression algorithm only <br>> implies that the compression is reversible. RAW -> PNG is a bit more than just <br>
> a compression, and there is no guarantee that all steps are reversible.<br>> <br>> *: certain systems use 2 different greens<br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 6<br>
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:51:59 +0000<br>> From: Andrew Goodbody <<a href="mailto:ajg02@elfringham.co.uk" target="_blank">ajg02@elfringham.co.uk</a>><br>> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the<br>
> power of open source <<a href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users@kde.org</a>><br>> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] re JPEG lossiness, PNG<br>> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4F1B418F.3070705@elfringham.co.uk" target="_blank">4F1B418F.3070705@elfringham.co.uk</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>> <br>> On 21/01/12 15:25, Peter Mc Donough wrote:<br>> >> OK, not listed, but it may work anyway. Did you try it? If it did not<br>> >> work did you provide sample files to Dave Coffin for him to implement<br>
> >> the support?<br>> ><br>> > No, I didn't. When I bought the camera, at that time I used jpeg - it<br>> > was a special offer and has suited my idea of a DSLR since - there were<br>> > at least three newer Olympus DSLR camera model generations.<br>
> > Later I gave RAW a try and browsing the web I couldn't find any demand<br>> > for a RAW profile of my "new" camera, so asking for one especially for<br>> > me seems to be a waste of the "resource" Dave Coffin.<br>
> <br>> It would not be especially for you. It would be for you and for all the <br>> other people out there who also looked for support and did not find it <br>> and then also did nothing. So your failure to send samples to Dave <br>
> Coffin is actually depriving other people. Just because you could find <br>> no published demand for support does not mean the demand does not exist, <br>> merely that those that want it have not published about it.<br>
> Why not let Dave Coffin be the judge of what is a waste of his time?<br>> <br>> > In fact, Digikam could read the original raw file and I didn't notice<br>> > any problems. On the other hand, I don't know enough about RAW files for<br>
> > deciding what, if anything, was missing or faulty.<br>> ><br>> > What I read in the web was an unhappiness about propriatary RAW formats.<br>> > There may be a good reason for propriatary formats - the obvious one I<br>
> > see and don't like is that a user may stick to one brand because his<br>> > valuable photos are of in a certain RAW type.<br>> <br>> Sounds like a bogus reason to me. I would question if anyone thought <br>
> that way. Raw formats change even in the same brand from one generation <br>> of camera to another. The solution is to have software support for both <br>> old and new format. Lots of bigger reasons for sticking to one brand eg <br>
> investment in lenses and other accessories.<br>> <br>> > What brough me to Adobe DNG were several discussions, among them:<br>> ><br>> > <a href="http://mansurovs.com/dng-vs-raw" target="_blank">http://mansurovs.com/dng-vs-raw</a><br>
> <br>> Interesting article. I had not noticed the reduction in the size of DNG <br>> files in comparison to raw files from the camera. I wonder why that is. <br>> One possibility is that a PC has the computing resources to be able to <br>
> do a better compression than the camera processor. So that would not be <br>> a feature of DNG per se, merely the recompression of the data with more <br>> resources available to do it. I wonder how the file size of those <br>
> cameras that produce DNG natively compares.<br>> Unfortunately the article is not clear about issues such as the reduced <br>> size does not apply if you opt to embed the original raw file, quite the <br>> reverse in fact. Also manufacturer developing programs can write to <br>
> their own raw file format so you do not necessarily have sidecar files. <br>> Also it is likely that open source will, in time, gain the ability to <br>> write to other raw formats (I think it can already write to some but not <br>
> all). Some of the advantages and disadvantages depend on the particular <br>> software in use and do not really apply in practice.<br>> <br>> > The version I have, DNGConverter 6.5, runs under standard Wine in<br>
> > Opensuse 11.4 64bit and of course in virtualized Windows XP.<br>> <br>> digikam, darktable, rawtherapee, dcraw, ufraw etc all run natively in <br>> Linux. BTW digikam can do the conversion from camera raw to DNG.<br>
> <br>> > I am very pro open standards and when I buy my next camera I will check<br>> > before whether its RAW format is supported under Linux.<br>> ><br>> > Peter<br>> <br>> I also am very pro open standards and would prefer all cameras to <br>
> produce raw files in a truly open standard format. Unfortunately even <br>> DNG is not truly open. While Adobe have published the specification <br>> there is no open process for developing it. DNG is owned and controlled <br>
> by Adobe.<br>> <br>> Andrew<br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 7<br>> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:08:28 -0800<br>> From: Bryce Schober <<a href="mailto:bryce.schober@gmail.com" target="_blank">bryce.schober@gmail.com</a>><br>
> To: <a href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org" target="_blank">digikam-users@kde.org</a><br>> Subject: [Digikam-users] 2.5 windows build broken for me<br>> Message-ID:<br>> <<a href="mailto:CAJpxd07Mo%2Bj0af_7TWaWbRnL5P5ezs4jm0Q2tZNxj8xDKB3DPw@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CAJpxd07Mo+j0af_7TWaWbRnL5P5ezs4jm0Q2tZNxj8xDKB3DPw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<div><div class="h5"><br>> <br>> I installed the 2.5.0 windows build, but it doesn't show any of my photos,<br>> and crashes a lot. One of the crashes I tried to get the stackdump, but the<br>
> crash handler just locked up.<br>> <br>> What can I do to help track down this problem? It seems like others are<br>> having similar issues with the 2.5 build.<br>> <br>> <>< <>< <><<br>
> Bryce Schober<br></div></div>> -------------- next part --------------<br>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>> URL: <<a href="http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20120121/79d099a7/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20120121/79d099a7/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Digikam-users mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Digikam-users@kde.org" target="_blank">Digikam-users@kde.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users</a><br>> <br>> <br>> End of Digikam-users Digest, Vol 80, Issue 50<br>> *********************************************<br>
</div> </div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Digikam-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Digikam-users@kde.org">Digikam-users@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>