Anne, I haven't got around to trying to view many images under MDK that were made elsewhere (camera, webcam or under a different O/S). But, I have experienced oodles of problems in Windows working with bitmaps under several graphics programs and with files that came from other O/S (like Macs). If I am going to have any problems, it seems to be from either compression or 'bit-depth'. you can make a BMP file at carious bit-depths (2-bit, 8-bit, 24-bit, etc.). Some programs can't handle all the combinations. However, if you are starting out with images from a digital camera, they are most likely compressed BMPs. Could it be possible that your editing program is able to handle compressed BMPs and therefore opens them properly to allow for editing, but KView cannot understand the compression scheme used by yoour camera and therefore making them unviewable until you remove it?
T ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:58 AM Subject: Re: [newbie] Thumbnail view puzzler On Wednesday 06 Nov 2002 10:53 am, you wrote: > Anne Wilson wrote: > >On Tuesday 05 Nov 2002 10:53 pm, you wrote: > >>Anne Wilson wrote: > >>>On Tuesday 05 Nov 2002 6:38 pm, you wrote: > >>>>Anne Wilson wrote: > >>>>>I use KView's ability to display thumbnails, when working > > with images, > > >>>>>but have come across a real puzzler. In the large batch of > > photos I'm > > >>>>>working with, two directories contain .jpg and .bmp images. > > Some of the > > >>>>>.bmps were written by a windows program, and some by gPhoto. > > The .jpgs > > >>>>>display as thumbnails, but the .bmps don't. > >>>>> > >>>>>In a third directors there are images that were captured > > from video by a > > >>>>>windows application, then trimmed in Gimp. These all show > > as .BMP. > > >>>>>These images do display as thumbnails. > >>>>> > >>>>>All three directories are subdirectories in a fat32 > > partition, so > > >>>>>renaming *.bmp to *.BMP makes no difference. > >>>>> > >>>>>Any ideas, anyone? > >>>>> > >>>>>Anne > >>>> > >>>>What about the name of the files ? > >>>> > >>>>John > >>> > >>>Non-displaying ones are in the order of pic00003.bmp and > > displaying ones > > >>>are Svid003.BMP. > >>> > >>>Anne > >> > >>Well I'm not familiar with those file names as such but I do > > know many > > >>windblows file names have to be changed, that is what jhead and > > chcase > > >>are there for, but just as > >>an experiment try changing the name to something all lowercase > > and see what > > >>happens. > >>john > > > >Wouldn't that be counter-productive? It's the mixed case ones > > that do > > >display correctly. > > > >BTW, the pic* names are because that's the way the smartmedia > > card names its > > >.jpg files, and I use .bmp when processing them to avoid further > > degradation. > > > The Svid* files are a user'defined prefix from the video > > capture software. > > >Anne > > All I can go on is my experiences with Windblows files , and any > Johnfiles that > were higher case I had to rename in all lower case to work in > linux, and > to that end chcase and jhead did the job. I'm beginning to think that the answer is much more simple. pic00039.bmp does not display, but pic00039a.bmp, which is a heavily cropped version, does. Is it simply a matter of size? I think it may be, since the camer pics are much larger than the video pics that display OK. Later, I'll try some cropping to test this theory. Anne ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
