[Digikam-users] 2.5 windows build broken for me
Eric F
falkaholic at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 22 20:56:26 GMT 2012
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.
Not sure how to troubleshoot either, just moved from the Linux version to windows.
Win7.
-Eric
> From: digikam-users-request at kde.org
> Subject: Digikam-users Digest, Vol 80, Issue 50
> To: digikam-users at kde.org
> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:00:05 +0000
>
> Send Digikam-users mailing list submissions to
> digikam-users at kde.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> digikam-users-request at kde.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> digikam-users-owner at kde.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Digikam-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. batch rename (Andreas T. Ege)
> 2. Re: re JPEG lossiness, PNG (Simon Oosthoek)
> 3. Where does "grouped" pictures dissapear? (Anders Lund)
> 4. Re: Where does "grouped" pictures dissapear? (Anders Lund)
> 5. Re: re JPEG lossiness, PNG (Remco Vi?tor)
> 6. Re: re JPEG lossiness, PNG (Andrew Goodbody)
> 7. 2.5 windows build broken for me (Bryce Schober)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:20:00 +0000
> From: "Andreas T. Ege" <andreas at spheniscid.net>
> To: digikam-users at kde.org
> Subject: [Digikam-users] batch rename
> Message-ID: <4F1AE5B0.2060105 at spheniscid.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
> Hello,
>
> when batch renaming files, I infrequently get the message 'file does not
> exist' after renaming 50-80% of the files, causing the batch to stop.
> Doesn't happen all the time, but sometimes I need 2-3 goes to rename
> images in a folder. I usually use 'name-##[e]' to rename.
> Has just happened again on some 32 images, and I filed a bug report
> about it.
>
> And very rarely it happens, that the batch completely mixes up the file
> order, renaming the images by some order I can't grasp.
> Haven't filed a bug report yet, has happened recently when I didn't have
> the time, and not since.
>
> --
> Andreas Ege
>
> 24 The Birches
> Shobdon
> Herefordshire HR6 9NG
> GB
> Mobile: +44.(0)7526.315292
> Tel.: +44.(0)1568.709166
> http://spheniscid.net
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:58:22 +0100
> From: Simon Oosthoek <somlist at xs4all.nl>
> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the
> power of open source <digikam-users at kde.org>
> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] re JPEG lossiness, PNG
> Message-ID: <4F1B0ACE.8040407 at xs4all.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 14/01/12 17:15, Jean-Fran?ois Rabasse wrote:
> >
> > JPEG can compress in a lossless way, until the algorithm bumps against
> > some limits. GIF does so, PNG does so. But JPEG can boost compression
> > efficiency if the user accept some losses.
> > That's what Marie-No?lle Augendre said, on this thread :
> > "I guess that to produce something smaller, you'll have to loose
> > something."
> > Definitely right, there's no magic at all, and Santa Claus doesn't
> > exist:-)
>
> Maybe I've missed a part of the discussion, but the main concern with
> Jpeg is, AFAIK, that jpeg is 8-bits, so always loses something when
> using RAW as the reference, since RAW formats usually have 10-16 bits
> per colour available as bandwidth and most SLR sensors have the ability
> to provide that dynamic range to a certain extend, converting from RAW
> to JPEG will at least cost you the difference in expressibility of
> colour and brightness (e.g. 12 bits in RAW to JPEG: 4096 to 256 shades).
> Even if no loss was caused by the JPEG algorithm, JPEG loses something.
>
> This is why PNG and JPG2000 are popular choices; they allow 16-bit
> values to be preserved and allow lossless compression (meaning it is
> reversible to "RAW" in theory)
>
> /Simon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:09:48 +0100
> From: Anders Lund <anders at alweb.dk>
> To: digikam-users at kde.org
> Subject: [Digikam-users] Where does "grouped" pictures dissapear?
> Message-ID: <201201212009.48866.anders at alweb.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
>
> Hi,
>
> Using digikam 2.5 is mostly a pleasure, but sometimes it does not do what it
> is supposed to.
>
> For example, typically I edit a photo, importing the raw and proccessing it,
> and then press "save changes". Sometimes this creates a new version in the
> photos version tab, but sometimes not.
>
> I dragged such a image onto the original, and accepted "group to here", and it
> dissapeared... Where did it go? :0
>
> Oh, and the behavior when saving should be consistent!
> --
> Anders
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:17:52 +0100
> From: Anders Lund <anders at alweb.dk>
> To: "digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the
> power of open source" <digikam-users at kde.org>
> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] Where does "grouped" pictures dissapear?
> Message-ID: <201201212017.52997.anders at alweb.dk>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On L?rdag den 21. januar 2012, Anders Lund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Using digikam 2.5 is mostly a pleasure, but sometimes it does not do what
> > it is supposed to.
> >
> > For example, typically I edit a photo, importing the raw and proccessing
> > it, and then press "save changes". Sometimes this creates a new version in
> > the photos version tab, but sometimes not.
> >
> > I dragged such a image onto the original, and accepted "group to here", and
> > it dissapeared... Where did it go? :0
>
> Nm, I found it. But the behavior is odd. I created a new edit, and this time,
> it was added to the raw photo version tab, but it is displayed in a kind of
> layered display with the first edit, which is grouped with the raw but not
> recognized as a version of that.
>
> > Oh, and the behavior when saving should be consistent!
>
> !
>
> --
> Anders
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:49:57 +0100
> From: Remco Vi?tor <remco.vietor at wanadoo.fr>
> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the
> power of open source <digikam-users at kde.org>
> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] re JPEG lossiness, PNG
> Message-ID: <1838203.pBcQ8o2xgG at manticore>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Saturday 21 January 2012 19:58:22 Simon Oosthoek wrote:
> > This is why PNG and JPG2000 are popular choices; they allow 16-bit
> > values to be preserved and allow lossless compression (meaning it is
> > reversible to "RAW" in theory)
> No, it is not: RAW files have as many pixels as the resulting PNG files (in
> theorie at least), but each represents only one colour channel out of three
> (or four*). The different colours are arranged in a matrix (Bayer matrix), so
> that a square of 4 pixels has the three colours, with green being present
> twice.
> To get the image on which we work (and which is stored as PNG or whatever),
> those colours are interpolated, so the original values are replaced by
> calculated values, and the missing colours are added for each pixel.Due to
> this interpolation, there is no guarantee that you can recover the original
> values.
>
> Note that the term "lossless" as applied to a compression algorithm only
> implies that the compression is reversible. RAW -> PNG is a bit more than just
> a compression, and there is no guarantee that all steps are reversible.
>
> *: certain systems use 2 different greens
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:51:59 +0000
> From: Andrew Goodbody <ajg02 at elfringham.co.uk>
> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the
> power of open source <digikam-users at kde.org>
> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] re JPEG lossiness, PNG
> Message-ID: <4F1B418F.3070705 at elfringham.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 21/01/12 15:25, Peter Mc Donough wrote:
> >> OK, not listed, but it may work anyway. Did you try it? If it did not
> >> work did you provide sample files to Dave Coffin for him to implement
> >> the support?
> >
> > No, I didn't. When I bought the camera, at that time I used jpeg - it
> > was a special offer and has suited my idea of a DSLR since - there were
> > at least three newer Olympus DSLR camera model generations.
> > Later I gave RAW a try and browsing the web I couldn't find any demand
> > for a RAW profile of my "new" camera, so asking for one especially for
> > me seems to be a waste of the "resource" Dave Coffin.
>
> It would not be especially for you. It would be for you and for all the
> other people out there who also looked for support and did not find it
> and then also did nothing. So your failure to send samples to Dave
> Coffin is actually depriving other people. Just because you could find
> no published demand for support does not mean the demand does not exist,
> merely that those that want it have not published about it.
> Why not let Dave Coffin be the judge of what is a waste of his time?
>
> > In fact, Digikam could read the original raw file and I didn't notice
> > any problems. On the other hand, I don't know enough about RAW files for
> > deciding what, if anything, was missing or faulty.
> >
> > What I read in the web was an unhappiness about propriatary RAW formats.
> > There may be a good reason for propriatary formats - the obvious one I
> > see and don't like is that a user may stick to one brand because his
> > valuable photos are of in a certain RAW type.
>
> Sounds like a bogus reason to me. I would question if anyone thought
> that way. Raw formats change even in the same brand from one generation
> of camera to another. The solution is to have software support for both
> old and new format. Lots of bigger reasons for sticking to one brand eg
> investment in lenses and other accessories.
>
> > What brough me to Adobe DNG were several discussions, among them:
> >
> > http://mansurovs.com/dng-vs-raw
>
> Interesting article. I had not noticed the reduction in the size of DNG
> files in comparison to raw files from the camera. I wonder why that is.
> One possibility is that a PC has the computing resources to be able to
> do a better compression than the camera processor. So that would not be
> a feature of DNG per se, merely the recompression of the data with more
> resources available to do it. I wonder how the file size of those
> cameras that produce DNG natively compares.
> Unfortunately the article is not clear about issues such as the reduced
> size does not apply if you opt to embed the original raw file, quite the
> reverse in fact. Also manufacturer developing programs can write to
> their own raw file format so you do not necessarily have sidecar files.
> Also it is likely that open source will, in time, gain the ability to
> write to other raw formats (I think it can already write to some but not
> all). Some of the advantages and disadvantages depend on the particular
> software in use and do not really apply in practice.
>
> > The version I have, DNGConverter 6.5, runs under standard Wine in
> > Opensuse 11.4 64bit and of course in virtualized Windows XP.
>
> digikam, darktable, rawtherapee, dcraw, ufraw etc all run natively in
> Linux. BTW digikam can do the conversion from camera raw to DNG.
>
> > I am very pro open standards and when I buy my next camera I will check
> > before whether its RAW format is supported under Linux.
> >
> > Peter
>
> I also am very pro open standards and would prefer all cameras to
> produce raw files in a truly open standard format. Unfortunately even
> DNG is not truly open. While Adobe have published the specification
> there is no open process for developing it. DNG is owned and controlled
> by Adobe.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:08:28 -0800
> From: Bryce Schober <bryce.schober at gmail.com>
> To: digikam-users at kde.org
> Subject: [Digikam-users] 2.5 windows build broken for me
> Message-ID:
> <CAJpxd07Mo+j0af_7TWaWbRnL5P5ezs4jm0Q2tZNxj8xDKB3DPw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I installed the 2.5.0 windows build, but it doesn't show any of my photos,
> and crashes a lot. One of the crashes I tried to get the stackdump, but the
> crash handler just locked up.
>
> What can I do to help track down this problem? It seems like others are
> having similar issues with the 2.5 build.
>
> <>< <>< <><
> Bryce Schober
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20120121/79d099a7/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>
>
> End of Digikam-users Digest, Vol 80, Issue 50
> *********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20120122/e78cd984/attachment.html>
More information about the Digikam-users
mailing list