I'll be interest to know what happens.  It's going to be Friday or maybe 
weekend before I can take time to explore the effect of reducing size.  I 
want to play about to see if I can really get an idea whether there is a 
maximum size for KView.  The 'don't display' files are about 2.2Mb.

Anne

On Wednesday 06 Nov 2002 2:38 pm, you wrote:
> From what little I have gathered here, you are making a change to the
> original image and that is the only way it is viewable through KView.
> Right? If this is really true, you are making a change to the file that
> makes the difference, whatever that may be. I cannot think of anything
> specific that would be causing this without testing it out myself. I don't
> think size is the issue, unless the originals happens to be very many MBs
> to begin with. Then it could be size related and either a limnitation of
> KView or something that can be adjusted for by changing a setting in a
> configuration file. (Just talking out loud...)
>
> I have an Earthlink digital camera (freebie) that I can connect up to my
> MDK 9.0 box and see if I can reproduce the problem. I believe the camera
> makes compressed BMPs, by default. I'll let you know what I come up with as
> soon as I try it out. Hopefully, someone with some experience with this
> will get to you, first.
>
> T
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anne Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [newbie] Thumbnail view puzzler
>
>
> 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

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Reply via email to