Sorting and Duplicate Filenames

SamirD

So after covering a huge event, I discovered that two of my cameras ended up syncing on the filename sequence. So I've got some overlapping filenames. Uploading was easy enough, just allow duplicates. But sorting, however, has proven to be more difficult. :dunno

I typically set a gallery to sort by filename ascending. Now while this does sort them properly, I'm finding that when two filenames are the same, their position in the gallery varies with each image view. Sometimes one comes first, sometimes the other. :scratch This is frustrating because my review process consists of having two windows open, one to quickly go through the images in SM view to cull the obvious ones, and another window to be able to click on images that need a closer view. The problem is that an image number, say #52 in the gallery, may not be the same image because the duplicate filename ones keep switching back and forth.

I know a way to have prevented this problem would have been to prefix the dupe files prior to upload so they would sort differently, but that's not a solution now. I've tried sorting by date, but I still run into this problem with videos. Any other suggestions?

SamirD

Even sorting my date doesn't work right. Apparently burst shots all have the same date/time stamp. :cry So these are also randomly showing out of order. No one has any suggestions?

pilotdave

SamirD wrote:

Even sorting my date doesn't work right. Apparently burst shots all have the same date/time stamp. :cry So these are also randomly showing out of order. No one has any suggestions?

Happens to me all the time... or did before I started importing with lightroom to make sure the files get unique names.

Switch the gallery sort to none, then use the arrange tool, by date. Then fix the ones that are in the wrong order one at a time.

Dave

SamirD

Thank you for the suggestions.

I started my culling process three times today.

I've finally just said the heck with two browsers (to get around the slowness of image loads) and am just using one browser. It's a slow process though, with lag times of up to 10 seconds between images loads, even with three 8mb cable modems on an AMD Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 4000+ running xp pro with 1GB of RAM.

I'm up to 527 of 1306 images. 1306-527=779 images x 10 seconds/60sec = 129.83 minutes. Hopefully I'll finish this today...

DeVerm

SamirD wrote:

on an AMD Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 4000+ running xp pro with 1GB of RAM.

You seriously want to upgrade the RAM to at least 3 GByte with XP or 4 GByte with Vista/Windows 7. It'll only cost you the equivalent of a cup of coffee and makes a lot of difference... maybe even on your Internet performance while having other applications active.

ciao!
Nick.

SamirD

DeVerm wrote:

You seriously want to upgrade the RAM to at least 3 GByte with XP or 4 GByte with Vista/Windows 7. It'll only cost you the equivalent of a cup of coffee and makes a lot of difference... maybe even on your Internet performance while having other applications active.

ciao!
Nick.

I can't believe so much ram is needed these days for the simplest tasks (looking at a web site). My coffee would be very expensive if it cost as much as the 2gb ram.

I usually have just the browser open and no other web site or even applications. But one thing I've noticed is that this system has a shared memory video adapter, so I'm losing about 256mb right there.

But the funny thing is that this system is perfectly fast and great with almost every other website. I've noticed that on all of my systems SM just is "heavier". If time becomes a big issue, then I guess an investment in more RAM will pay off quicker.

DeVerm

SamirD wrote:

I can't believe so much ram is needed these days for the simplest tasks (looking at a web site). My coffee would be very expensive if it cost as much as the 2gb ram.

I usually have just the browser open and no other web site or even applications. But one thing I've noticed is that this system has a shared memory video adapter, so I'm losing about 256mb right there.

But the funny thing is that this system is perfectly fast and great with almost every other website. I've noticed that on all of my systems SM just is "heavier". If time becomes a big issue, then I guess an investment in more RAM will pay off quicker.

Well, you have three (!) 8 Mbps cable modems and after the allocation of video memory just 750MB RAM for XP and the applications. You might want to reconsider your position, even $300.- netbooks have at least double that amount of memory.

If you think you're just "looking at a web site" you should just run the task monitor and check CPU utilization. It's been a while that Java etc. runs from web browsers. You are using an application, not just looking at a web page. As a 2GByte upgrade only cost just over $30, I don't understand why you think that is too much to "invest". It's all about the weak link.

cheers,
Nick.

SamirD

DeVerm wrote:

Well, you have three (!) 8 Mbps cable modems and after the allocation of video memory just 750MB RAM for XP and the applications. You might want to reconsider your position, even $300.- netbooks have at least double that amount of memory.

The cable modems are necessary for uploading since each is only 768k. 8gb uploads would take days instead of hours. Netbooks with that much ram are typically running vista vs xp.

DeVerm wrote:

If you think you're just "looking at a web site" you should just run the task monitor and check CPU utilization. It's been a while that Java etc. runs from web browsers. You are using an application, not just looking at a web page. As a 2GByte upgrade only cost just over $30, I don't understand why you think that is too much to "invest". It's all about the weak link.

I would understand if this was a java application like the uploader, but it's just javascript--something that while cpu intensive, doesn't slow down as much on other sites as on SM. I have to visit many fully-fledged javascripted and flashed out pages on a daily basis. None of them had the multi-second lag I had on that day reviewing photos.

If it was only $30 for 2GB, that wouldn't be bad at all. But this machine requires 800mhz pc-6400 ram, and two 1gb modules to run in a dual pipe configuration. Reputable manufacturers price out RAM on this machine above $60. Still not killer, but I don't have cash like that lying around right now.

I agree that it's all about the weakest link, but 3gb of RAM to simply view pictures on a web site is a bit drastic. I wonder what my clients would run into if I enabled larger images. I've worked on 30,000 line spreadsheets with this much RAM. It's just a bit demanding that a single web site have even more requirements than a fully coded application.