[Digikam-users] 2.5 windows build broken for me

Mon Jan 23 16:54:23 GMT 2012

FWIW, I down-graded back to the 2.3 build, which was working just fine for
me.

<><  <><  <><
Bryce Schober

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Eric F <falkaholic at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  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
> > *********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20120123/4a475463/attachment.html>