SL image numbering

[trond]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can you get around this by only formatting with a single card installed?  Then take it out and format the other?

 

scott

Yes, that works.

 

If only one card is in the camera when you format, then the folder number does not change when you format the card.

 

B R

 

Trond

[thighslapper]

...... yes .... if you have decided many moons ago to adopt a 'rename' policy for everything you take and then parcel them up sensibly in folders then it is irrelevant ......

 

but if you have used the folder naming facility to ensure unique numbering of images when using multiple Leica cameras then it becomes an issue.......

 

the main problem is that they have altered ..... presumably unintentionally ....... a system that has remained pretty static since the M8 ...... and also removed the facility to directly rename folders and reset file numbering to a specific point.

Edited December 15, 2015 by thighslapper

[ramarren]

...... yes .... if you have decided many moons ago to adopt a 'rename' policy for everything you take and then parcel them up sensibly in folders then it is irrelevant ......

 

but if you have used the folder naming facility to ensure unique numbering of images when using multiple Leica cameras then it becomes an issue.......

 

the main problem is that they have altered ..... presumably unintentionally ....... a system that has remained pretty static since the M8 ...... and also removed the facility to directly rename folders and reset file numbering to a specific point.

When I moved to using LR in 2006, I found that its automated organizational bits on import matched for the most part what I had been doing in Photoshop manually for some years, so I just kept doing it the same way. 

[thighslapper]

Unfortunately, despite the firmware upgrade the number with anything apart from the default L100 XXXX is again wrong .......

 

should go from LXX0 0999 to LXX0 1000 ....

 

in fact goes from LXX0 0999 to LXX1 0001.......

 

Someone at Leica lacks the basic ability to count .......

 

Time for another stiff email to technical support ......

[scott kirkpatrick]

Since it looks like this part of the SL firmware is pretty limited in the function that it offers, I suspect that no one at Leica cares deeply about it.  Changing it is work, however, and they still have plenty of that to do.  I am told by an expert that no one at Leica has time to read emails more than 10 lines long, so I think the request we should be sending is:

 

Restore the file numbering functionality that was successful in the M[240]  !!!

 

end of story.

 

scott

[trond]

Dear Leica forum friends!

 

FW 2.0 is a huge step forward, but I was disappointed when I found that the file numbering bug has not been fixed.

 

In fact it is even more stubborn than before!

 

I have spent a couple of hours trying to get my SL start the numbering where it left before updating to FW 2.0, but no luck.

 

With previous FW it was possible to trick the SL to start numbering where it left off by copying the last image to the appropriate folder on the card.

 

With FW 2.0 this is not possible anymore.

 

If there is any image on the card after updating to FW 2.0, the SL just increments the folder number and starts at 00001.

 

Resetting the camera and numbering, the SL starts at L1000001.DNG as before, but if L1000874.DNG is copied to the card, then next image after FW2.0 will be L1010001.DNG.

 

Even worse, if last image is L1050543, then after FW 2.0, your next image will be L1000001.DNG, and you will get duplicate file names.

 

To solve this I had to change the first letter, so now the images are numbered S1000001.DNG and so on.

 

The SL file numbering is the most unorthodox numbering scheme I ever have seen.

 

Why it has not been fixed, end even gotten worse than previous FW is beyond me.

 

Did not the beta FW testers discover this?

 

Why has Leica made it even worse than before!?

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

Why it has not been fixed, end even gotten worse than previous FW is beyond me.

 

Did not the beta FW testers discover this?

 

Why has Leica made it even worse than before!?

 

Best regards

 

Trond

 

..... because the majority if Beta testers are not interested in a sensible numbering system and use LR or other software on import to generate new numbers.......

 

I have (and have had) numerous Leicas and have my own system with LXX at the beginning changed to identify which camera the files originate from and sequential numbering within this system to avoid duplication.

 

I had an invitation email to be a beta tester ....... but repeated replies to Andreas and Leon replying I would be very happy to help (as I have done with other Leica cameras) went unanswered for reasons never explained. (a polite reply saying no thanks would have been nice) 

 

Had I been a tester I would have actively pursued this and extracted acknowledgement that it was an issue and assurances it would be fixed in the future if not with this update.

 

I emailed technical support months ago and they clearly could not understand what I was going on about. 

 

As it is, I am as fed up and disappointed as you are. 

 

I have spent half an hour resetting image numbering to get it to increment to my old folder setting of L130 XXXX ....... and then firing off 345 shots to get to my previous position for the last 3 digits....... so now I just have to batch change the remaining 4th digit to the current one before I put the files in their final directory (I use 'NameChanger' which works very well).

 

...... and the numbering still apparently only goes up to 999 before going to LXX1 0001 instead of LXXX 1000 ...... which anyone that could count would normally do. 

 

...... and no-one has reported yet whether the bug that incremented the folder by 1 every time you format a card in the camera has been permanently fixed ....... and I'm certainly not going to test it as it will ruin everything again.....

 

What a mess....

Edited April 15, 2016 by thighslapper

[ramarren]

Um, thighslapper: Several of the beta testers reported issues with the file numbering, including myself, in the shared beta forum. There's no need to go pointing fingers of blame and accusations at the testers because you are frustrated by something that doesn't work the way you'd like. 

 

The issues I found (resetting the file numbering to the initial state during the firmware installation and inability of the numbering to continue on from an existing sequence in the storage card) I reported on shortly after I installed the first beta release. They did not recur with the second and subsequent beta releases, so I could only presume they had been corrected—I could not contrive a test that would make them reappear since I can only install a given revision of firmware just once, and the camera numbering after doing the first one worked as I expected. 

 

Others reported on the file number at 0999 turnover, folder numbering, etc. These are issues which don't affect me because of my workflow with digital cameras, but if I'd seen them I would have reported them. Sorry, I didn't see them—I don't format my cards very often, as a matter of fact I've not formatted any of the cards I use with the SL, other than before using them, and have every exposure I've made with the camera on the cards. 

 

My current card in the camera now has just two folders on it (100 and 101) and is nearly full (6G free space left out of 64G). Installing the first beta firmware created the 100 folder, since the 101 folder was on this card already and has older work in it from FW1.2. The 100 folder has all the exposures I've made since the fw beta program began, about three quarters of what's on the card, and all numbers are sequential and contiguous despite several installations. 

 

Please don't point your exasperation at those who tested things as best they could. They weren't paid to put their equipment at risk on your behalf. 

[thighslapper]

my exasperation is that if I had been involved in this (as asked) I would have been a bit more persistent in trying to get answers and things sorted........ and I've done plenty of beta testing for a variety of cameras in the past. 

 

unfortunately Leica have a habit of beta testing very late....  and only for a couple of weeks just to see if what they have done works ok, rather than allow time to make major changes to things they have overlooked. 

 

they could really do with a rolling programme that gets the beta folk to test the changes incrementally rather than the whole lot a few weeks before proposed release. 

Edited April 15, 2016 by thighslapper

[trond]

This matter is completely unbelievable!

 

And why did Leica change it so it is even worse than before!?

 

on previous FW it was possible to get the camera to continue where it left of.

 

On FW 2.0 if the camera find any image on the  card it will just make a new folder with the lowest free number, and reset image number to 0001, which will give duplicate file numbers.

 

I earn my living for a company doing embedded programming for micro controllers like the one in the Leica SL.

 

File numbering is a really really simple task to implement.

 

I find the SL implementation of image numbering so stupid that I do not dare show the SL to my colleagues.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

Edited April 15, 2016 by trond

[ramarren]

my exasperation is that if I had been involved in this (as asked) I would have been a bit more persistent in trying to get answers and things sorted........ and I've done plenty of beta testing for a variety of cameras in the past. 

 

unfortunately Leica have a habit of beta testing very late....  and only for a couple of weeks just to see if what they have done works ok, rather than allow time to make major changes to things they have overlooked. 

 

they could really do with a rolling programme that gets the beta folk to test the changes incrementally rather than the whole lot a few weeks before proposed release. 

 

Heavens, I had no idea that the image file numbers produced by a camera could be the source of so much exasperation and horror. 

 

Honestly, I never look at the file numbers at all, and I've never customized the file naming in-camera. I noticed something amiss because the sequence changed, which made my exposures fall out of sequence when I sorted by filename after transferring them to my computer. I sorted by exposure time and they all aligned properly, so I just renamed them all with the correct sequence. That took all of three minutes. 

 

The report that I wrote to articulate what I'd see was well before the next fw beta release, and the second beta release installation worked properly (to my expectations), didn't perturb the file numbering sequence, etc. What would you have done differently? How would you have tested that the installation still had a problem more surely, given that you can only do an installation once? And who would you have been persistent with to "get answers and things sorted"? 

 

Sheesh. I do both alpha and beta testing every day as a part of my 'real' job, you know, the one that pays me a living. Alpha testing is fully informed, typically has access to the engineers and the code, and works incrementally with both unit testing and UI testing. Beta testing is never given "complete" information or incremental test instructions: beta testers are people external to the project intended to see how the stuff works in the hands of typical (if hopefully observant and motivated) users. Their input to the program is invaluable precisely because they don't know the ins and outs of every bit of what they're working with. 

[AlanJW]

The numbering issues were reported.  Don't blame the beta testers.   Hopefully, Leica will choose to deal with it at some point.  There is a simple solution, which has other advantages.  When you want to reformat a card do it in SD Formatter on the computer not in camera and the file numbering and folder structure will be retained.  No, that doesn't solve the 9999 problem, but the folder creation issue is IMHO more annoying.

[trond]

Dear Alan,

 

It does not work like that anymore.

 

If there is any image on the card after FW 2.0 is installed, no matter what you, the SL just increment the folder number.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[trond]

Heavens, I had no idea that the image file numbers produced by a camera could be the source of so much exasperation and horror. 

 

Dear Ramarren,

 

The image numbers by itself are not a big issue.

 

However, that such a simple mistake made it through program verification, internal and external testing on several different FW releases, and even onto the major FW 2.0, is really really disturbing!

 

How could that happen!?

 

It is a really simple programming task, and I hope the responsible programmer has long been fired.

 

I think the Leica CTO should have a really serious talk with the responsible verification team. 

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[ramarren]

Whatever, Trond.

 

Unlike you, I hope the engineering folks are well rewarded for all the excellent work they've done, they've made my camera even better, and that they settle the image numbering issues in the future for those that need it.

 

I personally couldn't care less about the file numbering, it's totally inconsequential to my photography and my workflow.

[trond]

Dear Ramarren,

 

I agree, and the SL is a remarkable fine camera, and the camera I grab when I head out to shoot photos.

 

But, I hate sloppy work, and in the case of the file numbering, that is exactly what its; sloppy work.

 

It is really easy to fix with minimal effort, so eiter the programmer is incompetent or Leica does not care.

 

Given now two public revisions of the FW, and the last one being a major release, I can only conclude that Leica does not care, or the file numbering works exactly as they planned.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

Edited April 16, 2016 by trond

[Yuhau]

Dear Ramarren,

 

I agree, and the SL is a remarkable fine camera, and the camera I grab when I head out to shoot photos.

 

But, I hate sloppy work, and in the case of the file numbering, that is exactly what its; sloppy work.

 

It is really easy to fix with minimal effort, so eiter the programmer is incompetent or Leica does not care.

 

Given now two public revisions of the FW, and the last one being a major release, I can only conclude that Leica does not care, or the file numbering works exactly as they planned.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

I haven't bought the SL yet, and am taking a very keen interest in the outcome of this  firmware development before I pull the trigger.  I was / am  a user of M8, M9, M9P , M240, T, V-lux and only  look forward to a PLEASANT shooting experience with camera of solid  firmware void of sloppy tested programming.   Thank you for the Goodwork of  the  Beta testing team, you guys have helped us to have a better firmware.

I always believe in quality and not quantity. Good  simple foolproof functions beat fancy complicated features any day (even when  they work ).       

[ramarren]

I haven't bought the SL yet, and am taking a very keen interest in the outcome of this  firmware development before I pull the trigger.  I was / am  a user of M8, M9, M9P , M240, T, V-lux and only  look forward to a PLEASANT shooting experience with camera of solid  firmware void of sloppy tested programming.   Thank you for the Goodwork of  the  Beta testing team, you guys have helped us to have a better firmware.

I always believe in quality and not quantity. Good  simple foolproof functions beat fancy complicated features any day (even when  they work ).       

 

 

Nothing's perfect, but the SL is a wonderful piece. It's pretty much the only camera I've used in months now, other than a very occasional outing with the M-P; I can't seem to get tired of shooting with it. 

[meerec]

Nothing's perfect, but the SL is a wonderful piece. It's pretty much the only camera I've used in months now, other than a very occasional outing with the M-P; I can't seem to get tired of shooting with it. 

 

I'm similar ... very happy shooting with the SL !! Finally my M lenses have found the right body (for me).

This weekend, I've pulled out my trusty Canon 1D4 mark IV with 70-200/2.8L II and 300/2.8L II and it is a gorgeous camera set for long reach.

I don't see myself buying the Leica 90-280 APO zoom. Not as yet; somehow I'm not compelled at all.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Sandokan]

Today, with the latest firmware upgrade, I was again reset to L100xxxx  (from K109xxxx)

Under menu, "Reset File Numbering" ten times has set it to L110xxxx and then I set the First Letter to K again, so I am at K110xxxx