Nope Anne
On Wednesday 06 Nov 2002 12:30 pm, you wrote: > Did you change the color or grayscale depth between the two? > > T > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:23 AM > Subject: Re: [newbie] Thumbnail view puzzler > > > Could be - but pic00039 and pic00039a were both edited and re-written by > Gimp, so if the compression was being changed I would have expected it to > be so in both pics. > > Anne > > On Wednesday 06 Nov 2002 12:20 pm, you wrote: > > 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
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
