2.5 windows build broken for me
Locked
2.5 windows build broken for me
 
|
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 _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
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: [hidden email] > Subject: Digikam-users Digest, Vol 80, Issue 50 > To: [hidden email] > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:00:05 +0000 > > Send Digikam-users mailing list submissions to > [hidden email] > > 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 > [hidden email] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [hidden email] > > 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" <[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email] > Subject: [Digikam-users] batch rename > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > 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 <[hidden email]> > To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the > power of open source <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] re JPEG lossiness, PNG > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > 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 <[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email] > Subject: [Digikam-users] Where does "grouped" pictures dissapear? > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > 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 <[hidden email]> > To: "digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the > power of open source" <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] Where does "grouped" pictures dissapear? > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > 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 <[hidden email]> > To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the > power of open source <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] re JPEG lossiness, PNG > Message-ID: <1838203.pBcQ8o2xgG@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 <[hidden email]> > To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the > power of open source <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] re JPEG lossiness, PNG > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > 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 <[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email] > Subject: [Digikam-users] 2.5 windows build broken for me > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > 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 > [hidden email] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users > > > End of Digikam-users Digest, Vol 80, Issue 50 > ********************************************* _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: 2.5 windows build broken for me
|
|
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
«
Return to digikam-users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |