Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
March 28, 2024, 03:26:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Professional Photo Printing Software for Windows
Print with
Qimage and see what you've been missing!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Thumb sort order  (Read 43103 times)
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2010, 09:53:34 PM »

Thanks for the clarifications and comments. I really was just curious as to why QU wouldn't sort by date correctly - I guess the answer is "that's the way it is and the way it will stay". Not really a big deal, but it does nullify the date sort function.
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 4109



View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2010, 11:12:58 PM »

Thanks for the clarifications and comments. I really was just curious as to why QU wouldn't sort by date correctly - I guess the answer is "that's the way it is and the way it will stay". Not really a big deal, but it does nullify the date sort function.

Just to clarify, QU does sort by date (and time) properly!  It's the simple fact that you do not have the data to support time sorting when shooting at 9 fps.  The operating system(s) don't support it and neither does EXIF.  That is not a Qimage issue.

P.S.  There are easy ways to resolve this BTW.  Use QU's auto-rename function to rename the files by date and time and at the end just include the numeric part of the original file name.  Then if you have 5 pictures that were taken on the same second, you'll get file names like
2010-09-07 13.46.52 [0374]
2010-09-07 13.46.52 [0375]
2010-09-07 13.46.52 [0376]
2010-09-07 13.46.52 [0377]
2010-09-07 13.46.52 [0378]

And they'll always be in sequence as long as your camera numbers them sequentially.  Then just sort by filename and you get the proper sort.

Mike
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 11:42:39 PM by Mike Chaney » Logged
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2010, 03:24:47 PM »

Just because I feel like arguing with you:

The sort function of QU does NOT work for date. To have to rename a file in order for a function to work is, to me, the same as not working. As I have said before, Nikon Capture and View BOTH sort correctly on date, every time, every frame, no matter the frames per second, WITHOUT modification, over 50,000 frames sorted from FOUR different Nikon DSLR cameras, so it IS POSSIBLE and the data IS THERE.

End of rant....
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 03:31:29 PM by UltraChrome » Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 4109



View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2010, 03:34:08 PM »

Just because I feel like arguing with you:

The sort function of QU does NOT work for date. To have to rename a file in order for a function to work is, to me, the same as not working. As I have said before, Nikon Capture and View BOTH sort correctly on date, every time, every frame, no matter the frames per second, WITHOUT modification, over 50,000 frames sorted from FOUR different Nikon DSLR cameras, so it IS POSSIBLE and the data IS THERE.

End of rant....

Just because I know for a fact you are wrong:

QU absolutely DOES sort properly by date/time.  Date/time is defined as the file modified date/time or the EXIF date/time neither of which contain data that can resolve 9 fps.  If the Nikon software is sorting in sequence, then they are either sorting by date PLUS filename (which is a different sort entirely) or they have a proprietary timecode in the file that only Nikon can read (which isn't very useful).

Mike
Logged
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2010, 03:38:31 PM »

I'm guessing Nikon is using the shutter count field for the correct order. Changing the name of a file NEVER interferes with the correct date sort I get on Nikon software. Just curious - is this a problem only with Nikon or do other file formats not sort correctly if shots are fast?
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 4109



View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2010, 04:28:10 PM »

I'm guessing Nikon is using the shutter count field for the correct order. Changing the name of a file NEVER interferes with the correct date sort I get on Nikon software. Just curious - is this a problem only with Nikon or do other file formats not sort correctly if shots are fast?

It's a problem with any camera that shoots that fast since both the file date/time and the EXIF date/time stamp will be the same if you shoot faster than once a second.  Nikon must be getting their data from a proprietary "maker notes" tag in the file.  That's not something I plan to support but I *can* make it so that if the date/time stamp is the same for a bunch of files, it keeps the file names in order.  In other words, I can make the file name the secondary sort.  I think that would do it for most people.

Mike
Logged
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2010, 03:01:02 PM »

It would be good to at least keep the "seconds" in order. Thanks for listening. Here's my latest "date" sort:

Without going into the entire sequence of shots, here’s how it sorted when I selected date/time. The sort was – (minus) and should list LAST SHOT FIRST:

File Name      File Date Time (hh:mm:ss)
1202         09:24:22
1201         09:24:21
1200         09:24:21
1205         09:23:23
1204         09:24:23
1203         09:24:22
1197         09:24:20
1196         09:24:19
and so on.

Order should be (from first to last):
1205-1204-1203-1202-1201-1200-1199-1198-1197-1196

The numbers missing from the above example are further down in the preview window. Obviously the sort is way off.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 03:08:41 PM by UltraChrome » Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 4109



View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2010, 01:51:08 PM »

The operating system only supports file date/time down to ~2 second intervals, so Qimage is bound by that.  That said, I think you must be looking at the wrong column.  Where are you getting your file times?  Explorer no longer shows seconds (because MS knows the OS cannot resolve to the second), so where are you getting your file times?  Qimage sorts by file modified date.  Maybe you are looking at file creation date or some other date?  It definitely will not sort 9:24:22, then go to 9:24:23, and back to 9:24:19.

In fact, something is very "funky" with your column that you list as "file date time" because if you list the actual file date/time, you won't see a combination of even and odd seconds.  So I know you got your data from some place other than the actual file date/time.  Did you get it from the Nikon data?

Mike
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 4109



View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2010, 03:23:47 PM »

I just released 118 with a tweak for sorting by date so give that a try.  It does a subsort by filename which should take care of 99% of issues with shooting faster than your system can record the file date/time.

Mike
Logged
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2010, 07:23:02 PM »

I've tried the new version. It looked promising when I tried sorting 12 files in "date +" order. Then I sorted in "date -" order and the order did not change at all. Then I tried a larger directory area (containing jpg, tiff and raw files, and it seems the date sort is TOTALLY unusable. It seems to have no order at all, and, worse yet, it won't even retain the same incorrect order if you select between + and - (i.e. it does not "mirror" the order) . It IS consistent in its inconsistency, however. I think some problems (although not all) may have to do with the use of special characters. The Nikon naming system uses an underscore "_" as the first or fourth digit to determine the color space used. For example, if I shoot sRGB, the file will be named _xxxXXXX (with the xxx being selectable by me using any character and XXXX being the 4-digit frame number assigned by the camera). If I shoot AdobeRGB, the file will be name xxx_XXXX.

I did go back and reload Qimage Studio and I notice it has the same problems I originally posted here (but that's better than whatever you did to Ultimate). I never noticed it before but was not using QI Studio the same way I would like to use Ultimate.

As for what field I use for my data given in my posts, I have been using Nikon's "date shot" field.  Their software  displays "created"; "modified" and "shot" dates/times. The "date shot" shows milliseconds, both in Nikon ViewNX and Nikon Capture NX2. FWIW, I haven't really dealt with any programming since in the 60's when we used punchcards in Fortran or Cobol...

EDIT For my info, what are the hex locations of the fields you are using for the date sort (it looks like you use the one starting on line 400 which is the second date I see)? It may help me shake this down. All I want to do is get a correct  date by milli-second sort! Am I the only one that shoots more than 1fps?

EDIT (file removed) See the attached file for HEX locations...not really sure if that helps as that location seems to change...
« Last Edit: September 12, 2010, 01:40:53 AM by UltraChrome » Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3247



View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2010, 09:59:32 PM »

Quote
Am I the only one that shoots more than 1fps?
Last week I went to a Show Jumping event and used continuous shooting for much of the time. I'm not up to your 9fps but was at 3fps with my modest Canon. I was shooting in raw so kept the bursts down to no more than 6 frames to allow for writing. Horses are not as quick as cars either Roll Eyes
Prior to Mike modifying QU to v118, I had no problem because I use FlashPIpe to re-name in the form yy-mm-dd #camera file number and sort by name +.
With v118 sorting by date + or - is fine too. The file data shows I was getting up to 3 images with the same time to the second as expected and all are in sequence.
How much difference 3 to 9 fps makes or Canon compared to Nikon with respect to sorting I don't know, but it works for me here.  Smiley
Terry
Logged
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2010, 10:19:43 PM »

RE:
With v118 sorting by date + or - is fine too. The file data shows I was getting up to 3 images with the same time to the second as expected and all are in sequence.


I assume the sort is done AFTER you have renamed every file? What happens to your sorting if you just transfer the files directly to disk from the CF (or whatever) card in your camera without a rename? Does the "date sort" sort them correctly, + and - ? Thanks.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 10:22:35 PM by UltraChrome » Logged
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 11, 2010, 11:14:09 PM »

For further testing, I shot two sets of shots today. SET ONE was numbered from 300_1224 to 300_1238; then two hours later I shot SET TWO numbered 300_1239 to 300_1253. FWIW, they were not shot in the same "minute". They were shot and named numerically in order from 1224 thru 1253 with correct time stamps according to Nikon ViewNX.

When sorting in QI Ultimate, if I sort by "name +" they appear correctly (#'s 1224-1253). If I sort by "name -" they appear correctly (#'s 1253-1224).

If I sort by date +, they appear as follows: #1239-1253 then #1224-1238. Sorted by "date -" changes NOTHING (no reversal of order, they show up EXACTLY the same way as the "date +" sort). In "date +" they should appear #1224-1253 (same as if sorted by "name +"); in "date -" they should appear "#1253-1224" (same as "name -"). It looks as if it tried to sort them in a "date -" order but messed up the date order within the "set".
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 11:18:58 PM by UltraChrome » Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 4109



View Profile Email
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2010, 03:44:00 PM »

v2010.119 contains the final tweak for date sorting.  It sorts properly by date and time (as it always has) and then sorts (forward or backward as appropriate) by file name for files that have the exact same date/time stamp.  v2010.118 sorted like Windows Explorer which isn't ideal because Windows Explorer always sorts in ascending order by file name if the date/time stamp are the same even if you told Explorer to sort by date(-).  v2010.119 works better WRT photos because it takes into account that higher numbered photos are shot later in time... something Explorer won't do and can't really assume.

If you want to compare Qimage to something, compare it to Windows Explorer.  It now does a better job than Explorer.  Forget about Nikon products.  I will not be supporting proprietary data where you have to open the file and search inside each file to find a proprietary time in the milliseconds.  Now you get a sort that is better than Explorer and that's as far as I'm going to go and quite honestly more than is needed.

BTW, if you shot a sequence 24-38, waited even a few seconds, and then you shot 39-53 and you got 39-53 first and 24-38 second on a date(+) sort even with 118, your date/time file stamps are WRONG!  Use Explorer to confirm this: Windows Explorer will show you that the date/time on the 39-53 set is before the date/time stamp on the 24-38 set.  I presume that can happen if you did something like modified or somehow "recreated" the 24-38 set after the 39-53 set.

Mike
Logged
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2010, 04:37:16 PM »

Final comment:
I shot in continuous order from 1224 through 1253. 1224 - 1235 were shot at 9am; 1236 - 1253 were shot at 2pm. The correct order for a sort should be either 1224 (oldest) through 1253 (newest) OR 1253 (newest) through 1224 (oldest). That's the order they came out of the camera and that's the order they were shot in (I shot photos of a clock with seconds to be sure they were in the correct order as they came out of the camera (as if my Nikon would misnumber them  Grin) and they were NOT shot within a single second). The files have not been modified by me in any way. Since it is obvious that you can't/won't fix this problem, I'll stop bugging you (pun intended). 'Nuff said...

Version 119: date/time sort: still incorrect

Test file #’s : 300_1224 (FIRST SHOT) through 300_1253 (LAST SHOT) continuous as shot in camera (30 shots)

Name sort works correctly (prefix "300_" dropped for clarity):
“Name +” shows 1224 thru 1253 continuously
“Name –“ shows 1253 thru 1224 continuously (direct reverse order)

“Date/time +” sort (which should be in the "name +" order: 1239:1240:1241:1242:1243:1244:1245:1246:1247:1248:1249:1250:1251:1252:1253 (LAST SHOT):1224 (FIRST SHOT):1225:1226:1227:1228:1229:1230:1231:1232:1233:1234:1235:1236:1237:1238

“Date/time –“ sort (which should be in the "name -" order::
1238:1237:1236:1235:1234:1233:1232:1231:1230:1229:1228:1227:1226:1225:1224 (FIRST SHOT):1253 (LAST SHOT):1254:1253:1252:1251:1250:1249:1248:1247:1246:1245:1244:1243:1242:1241:1239

“Close, but no pizza” I have attached two files for your perusal...

BTW - Explorer sorts them fine, + or -, using "date created".
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 04:56:22 PM by UltraChrome » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Security updates 2022 by ddisoftware, Inc.