CheshireCat Posted July 27, 2014 Share #261 Posted July 27, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just noticed that folder "100LEICA" contains all images up to "L1009999.DNG". Then a new folder "101LEICA" has been created and the first image starts with "L1000001.DNG". I would expect the first image in the "101LEICA" folder to start with "L1010000.DNG" but it seems that some engineers at Leica live in a different logic dimension than the average human. I am getting tired of this nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Hi CheshireCat, Take a look here Remaining/new bugs in FW 2.0.1.5. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mirekti Posted July 27, 2014 Share #262 Posted July 27, 2014 Then a new folder "101LEICA" has been created and the first image starts with "L1000001.DNG". You're good. At the time I realized I was already at L1006xx.DNG, and I believe it was the case with the old fw version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 27, 2014 Share #263 Posted July 27, 2014 Within the folder, the individual pictures are given continuous numbers up to 9999 unless a the memory card in use already contains a picture with a higher number than the last number assigned by the camera. That's been known for some time. It is even documented in the manual. What - exactly - impairs the use of the camera if it numbers the files exactly as documented? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 27, 2014 Share #264 Posted July 27, 2014 The first four digits are a file name, not a number. If you had chosen CHES as file name the last image of your 100LEICA folder would have been CHES9999 while the first one of the 101LEICA folder would have been CHES0001 and not CHE10000 needless to say. Excerpt from the instruction booklet page 216: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/229749-remainingnew-bugs-in-fw-2015/?do=findComment&comment=2638364'>More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 28, 2014 Share #265 Posted July 28, 2014 pop, lct... yes, this is right. I "thanked" the cat before I thought about why I never ran into this "problem." Which is because, I have been using unique 4-digit names and never run into this problem. There are still a few things that could be changed in this FW... but, (for me) it really is time to just enjoy summer and this amazing camera that I feel so fortunate to own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 28, 2014 Share #266 Posted July 28, 2014 Guys, thanks for pointing me to the manual. The fact this behavior is specified in the manual, only means that - technically - this is not a bug. But it still does not make any sense. What - exactly - impairs the use of the camera if it numbers the files exactly as documented? It does not impair the use of the camera. It impairs proper handling and organization of the library. Every time the counter is reset, I get duplicate filenames. This means I need to pay attention not to overwrite my files when I copy them from the camera to my computer. Duplicate filenames make it painful to export a particular subset of my images. Duplicate filenames make it impossible to sort images from outside of applications that are not able to read the EXIF timestamps embedded in the images. Duplicate filenames make it impossible for other people to just tell you "Oh, I love L10001234, please send me a print", without you asking: "Ahem, I have five of them... can you please describe what was in the picture ?". Duplicate filenames... are bad. You get the idea And what is the reason why I get duplicate filenames ? It is because some genius at Leica decided that it was more important for me to customize the first four characters of my filenames. Like "9999 shots will be enough for everyone", rings a bell ? But this is a feature, not a bug, so there should be a couple of users in the world that are using it - one is Rick, and the other is probably that genius at Leica. Therefore, all I am asking is: For the other 99.999% of users that have not customized the filename, can we please have it automatically incremented from "L1000000" to "L9999999" so we don't get duplicate filenames ? Thank you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 28, 2014 Share #267 Posted July 28, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The whole point of your complaint is that you want to import your pictures into your computer and that you want to use the file name as a primary key. Computers are programmable. Why don't you program yours? Assigning unique numbers to the pictures would take just a few minutes' worth of work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 28, 2014 Share #268 Posted July 28, 2014 Computers are programmable. Why don't you program yours? Assigning unique numbers to the pictures would take just a few minutes' worth of work. I prefer to spend my time doing more productive things than patching "features" by other programmers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 28, 2014 Share #269 Posted July 28, 2014 Guys, thanks for pointing me to the manual.The fact this behavior is specified in the manual, only means that - technically - this is not a bug. But it still does not make any sense. It does not impair the use of the camera. It impairs proper handling and organization of the library. Every time the counter is reset, I get duplicate filenames. This means I need to pay attention not to overwrite my files when I copy them from the camera to my computer. Duplicate filenames make it painful to export a particular subset of my images. Duplicate filenames make it impossible to sort images from outside of applications that are not able to read the EXIF timestamps embedded in the images. Duplicate filenames make it impossible for other people to just tell you "Oh, I love L10001234, please send me a print", without you asking: "Ahem, I have five of them... can you please describe what was in the picture ?". Duplicate filenames... are bad. You get the idea And what is the reason why I get duplicate filenames ? It is because some genius at Leica decided that it was more important for me to customize the first four characters of my filenames. Like "9999 shots will be enough for everyone", rings a bell ? But this is a feature, not a bug, so there should be a couple of users in the world that are using it - one is Rick, and the other is probably that genius at Leica. Therefore, all I am asking is: For the other 99.999% of users that have not customized the filename, can we please have it automatically incremented from "L1000000" to "L9999999" so we don't get duplicate filenames ? Thank you If you use an importing program that assigns unique filenamees you will never have this problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 28, 2014 Share #270 Posted July 28, 2014 I prefer to spend my time doing more productive things than patching "features" by other programmers Such as swearing here at other programmers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 28, 2014 Share #271 Posted July 28, 2014 The whole point of your complaint is that you want to import your pictures into your computer and that you want to use the file name as a primary key. Not exactly. The whole point is that duplicate filenames are bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 28, 2014 Share #272 Posted July 28, 2014 Your point is that you find duplicate filenames bad. They never bother me since I do not import pictures from different outings or cameras into the same directory. Sorting pictures from different sources is a nightmare. Keeping track of the filenames used so far when scanning pictures is a nightmare. Just leave the bloody names be and manage them either when importing or use a different attribute in a catalog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 28, 2014 Share #273 Posted July 28, 2014 The first four digits are a file name, not a number. It isn’t quite as simple. The Japanese industry standard governing the way digital cameras should store image files requires that filenames are 8 characters plus extension. The last 4 characters of the filename are digits specifying a unique image number within the current folder whereas the use of the first 4 characters isn’t restricted. My Pentax DSLR, for example, uses "IMGP" by default. Some vendors have chosen to use these 4 characters to store the folder number along with the file number – Panasonic, for example, and also Leica, at least for some of their cameras such as the M9. The M (Typ 240), on the other hand, treats the first 4 characters as an arbitrary string that can be redefined by the user. It is unfortunate that Leica chose "L100" as the default since it suggests that file numbering still works the way it did with the M9, i.e. that the folder number would be included in the file name. It isn’t: "L100" isn’t the folder number but just some arbitrary string. Now this is hardly unusual; in fact most cameras on the planet operate like this. But it is understandable that it would catch new owners unawares. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 28, 2014 Share #274 Posted July 28, 2014 Not sure what the whole point is but the solution is simple IMHO. If your current file name is L100, just rename it as L101 and the first file of your 101LEICA folder will be L1010001. And when you reach again 9999 images, rename your file name as L102 and the first file of your 102LEICA folder will be L1020001. No duplicate file names then and no need to be a genius to achieve that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 28, 2014 Share #275 Posted July 28, 2014 Such as swearing here at other programmers? If no one complains, then programmers will assume they did a great job by default No complaints == No improvements. If I had a bit more support here insted of sarcastic replies, then we all may have a better camera in the future Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 28, 2014 Share #276 Posted July 28, 2014 If I had a bit more support here insted of sarcastic replies, then we all may have a better camera in the future What if other users don't like your proposal and find that particular aspect of the camera perfectly well done? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
acordes Posted July 28, 2014 Share #277 Posted July 28, 2014 What if other users don't like your proposal and find that particular aspect of the camera perfectly well done? It is really NOT perfectly done - and I can't hear that anymore: Done by Leica so it's perfect... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 28, 2014 Share #278 Posted July 28, 2014 If your current file name is L100, just rename it as L101 and the first file of your 101LEICA folder will be L1010001.And when you reach again 9999 images, rename your file name as L102 and the first file of your 102LEICA folder will be L1020001. Ahem... the camera does not tell me when it has reached 9999. Besides, why should I do something a computer can do for me ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 28, 2014 Share #279 Posted July 28, 2014 It would have been perfect if Leica had chosen a more sensible filename default, i.e. "DSCL", "IMGL", or similar. "L100" was bound to confuse users, especially those experienced with earlier incarnations of the digital M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 28, 2014 Share #280 Posted July 28, 2014 If you use an importing program that assigns unique filenamees you will never have this problem. Indeed, but this requires an extra step that would not be needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.