Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
ImageIngester Beta 1.6.0B1 for Mac now supports Preference Sets
The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2020, 08:54:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28033 Posts in 5147 Topics by 2903 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The DAM Forum
|-+  Software Discussions
| |-+  ImageIngester and ImageVerifier
| | |-+  ImageIngester Beta 1.6.0B1 for Mac now supports Preference Sets
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: ImageIngester Beta 1.6.0B1 for Mac now supports Preference Sets  (Read 11128 times)
Marc Rochkind
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1136


View Profile WWW Email
« on: June 23, 2006, 03:04:03 PM »

Several people have asked for a way to save preferences and recall them later from a drop-down, analagously to the way Metadata Templates are managed in Bridge and Photoshop. So, that feature is now in 1.6.0B1, which you can download from http://basepath.com/ImageIngester/download_main_new.php.

Preference sets are good for different shooting scenarios (e.g., professional, casual, spouse's point-and-shoot, etc.), for different hardware setups (e.g., external drive or network available or not), or for any similar purpose.

Everything on the Preferences Panel except for the Update Check checkbox is part of the Preference Set. So are the starting number, metadata template, and user-named folder on the main window.

You can choose an existing preference set from a new drop-down on the main window or from a similar one on the Preferences Panel. The latter also has menu items for creating a new set and deleting an existing set. The currently active preference set name is saved. If you never use preference sets, you get a set named "Default," which operates exactly like the current single-set of preferences does now.

As always, feedback is welcome... actually, it would be more accurate to say that feedback is essential! ;-)

--Marc
Logged

Mike Guilbault
Full Member
***
Posts: 226


mike.guilbault
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2006, 06:52:29 PM »

I hadn't used ImageIngester until today. I downloaded Beta 1.6.0B1 and after returning from a shoot, connected my camera (D200) to download 71 RAW files.  It took over 28 minutes.  Is this normal?  Seems VERY slow.  I'm on an eMac G4, didn't use DNG converter.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2006, 07:41:54 PM by mikeguil » Logged

Mike Guilbault
Full Member
***
Posts: 226


mike.guilbault
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2006, 07:15:56 PM »

I had the filenaming set  to Text, which was "CFB" and Filename Numbers and this is what I got:

20060625_101852_NEF_5695_CFB_5695.NEF

Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong?

HOLD ON... ok.. I I was still working and,

"Copying unconverted images to staging folder" - which gave the files their proper names and then
"Moving images to primary folders" - which placed them in the folder that I was wanting.

Wow.. is all that necessary?  I thought it would just copy the files, add the MetaData and change the filename.  I'm not a programmer, so maybe this is all normal, but it seems to be working very hard for something that I assumed was simple.   I really think I could have done all that faster within Bridge?  Am I missing something?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2006, 07:47:58 PM by mikeguil » Logged

Marc Rochkind
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1136


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2006, 09:15:44 PM »

For "mikeguil":

On my G5, I can run 200 5MB files through ImageIngester, including DNG Converter, in 10 min. If you're not running DNG Converter, maybe 28 min. is the right number for 71 D200 files (10 MB each?) on an eMac G4. I don't have a machine like that, so I have no benchmarks for comparison.

As for the weird intermediate file names: ImageIngester first copies the card files to the backup folder, and then it normally runs DNG Converter to copy them to the staging folder. If DNG Converter isn't running, or is only verifying, ImageIngester does the copying itself. Then it copies the files to the primary folders. The reason for all the extra copying is that DNG Converter is incapable of copying the files to the primary folder itself unless all the files go into a single folder. That's one scenario, but with date folders it's possible for the images to end up in different folders.  The names are the way they are because they have to hold information about the file name that will be needed when the files are placed in the primary folders.

Until version 1.5.2, ImageIngester only had date folders; now that it has user-named and number-range folders, it would be possible to skip the staging folder, but that optimization hasn't been implemented.

So, you are right about not all of the copying being necessary.

--Marc
Logged

Marc Rochkind
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1136


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2006, 10:26:41 PM »

Mike--

One more thought on your eMac time: What was the reported time for the copy from the card? Version 1.6.0B1 reports that time separately from the total ingestion time.

--Marc
Logged

Mike Guilbault
Full Member
***
Posts: 226


mike.guilbault
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2006, 04:51:53 AM »

Marc.. thanks for the quick reply.  The copy time was 22 minutes.

I've got a shoot again this morning and when I get back to the studio, I'll try it on my G5/Dual 2.0 at work.  That's where I'll be mostly using it anyway.  I know my G4 is short on memory and also running out of Hard Disk space - so I'm sure those are contributing as well.
Logged

ScottBuckel
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2006, 07:15:36 AM »

I was wondering about copy speed last night as I loaded 3 1 gb cards.  They each took between 7 minutes 17 seconds and 7 minutes 30 seocnds (at least that is what Imageingester presented upon completion).  I was wondering if that typical, and from this thread it looks like it was pretty fast in comparison.  I did not do any DNG conversions.

I use a 3.4 gHz Windows XP computer with the IDE based card reader and the fiels are from a D2X (19-21Mb raw files).  I have not really done any comparison with my laptop, as of yet.  But I was wondering if it was reasonable to want this to be faster?  BTW I am not known for my patience. . .


Logged

Scott Buckel
Monrovia, CA
Marc Rochkind
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1136


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2006, 07:19:01 AM »

Mike--

If I'm understanding the numbers, 22 of the 28 minutes was the copy from the card? That's just a straight copy from card to disk, with no DNG Conversion, no staging folder, no distribution into primary folders, etc. That indicates to me that the USB connection is slow. I've seen this when copying directly from the camera; with a USB 1.1 connection instead of USB 2.0; and once when I had a faulty USB hub. Memory  and disk space on the computer shouldn't be factors.

Let me know what the 22 minutes turns into on your bigger computer.

--Marc
Logged

Marc Rochkind
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1136


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2006, 07:22:55 AM »

Scott--

It is definitely reasonable to want it to be faster! ;-)

But, 7 min. or so to ingest 1GB sounds about right to me. As I indicated in a response to Mike, there are some optimizations that I yet can make.

--Marc
Logged

ScottBuckel
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2006, 09:05:47 AM »

Marc - I was just renaming and copying the files, if I added metadata would it actually be slower?

I have been using DigitalPro in the past to ingest cards and add some caption, copywirte information.  This woudl take a little more than 3 minutes to move the files, albeit it di not create a backup.  If I were make only one copy, would the time be about half? When I am in the field I woudl like to do this pretty quickly and looking for options.

Thanks,

Scott
Logged

Scott Buckel
Monrovia, CA
Marc Rochkind
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1136


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2006, 06:20:49 PM »

Scott--

Adding the metadata takes a very small amount of time because the files are so small.

Here's what ImageIngester does, at the coarsest level:

1. Copies from card to backup folder.
2. Copies from backup folder to staging folder.
3. Copies from staging folder to primary folder(s).
4. Copies the metadata template to the primary folder(s). One copy per raw image. Soon to be a copy for JPEGs, too.

Running DNG Converter is by far the most time-consuming part, but it's optional. When DNG Converter is run to convert, it does the copy in step #2 for raws, and ImageIngester itself does the copy for non-raws. When DNG Converter isn't run or is run for verification only, ImageIngester does all the copying in step #2 itself.

As I indicated in an earlier post, most of #3 can be optimized away, and I will do that at some point. Nothing else at this coarse level can be optimized away.

With a fast connection to the card (USB 2, external card reader), #1 and #2 are about the same amount of work (ignoring conversion), so ImageIngester's making of a backup would double the time. The staging folder stuff adds another 50%. (These percentages are without DNG Converter.)

(For those readers who may be interested, the reason for this inefficient design is that originally the copying from the staging folder to the primary folder wasn't a copy at all, but was done nearly instantly just by linking the files to the new folder. However, a bug in OS X forced me to do a full copy. Had I known that linking wouldn't work at the start, I would have designed things differently. As it stands now, that will have to be "RE-design things differently.")

--Marc
Logged

ScottBuckel
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2006, 09:14:04 PM »

Marc - thanks for the information.  I need to try imageingester with my laptop to see how fast it may be so I can be prepared for my next phototrip.  Maybe I'll take the chance and only copy a single copy of each file. 

I really like the images from the D2X, but the files are so big they create problems.  I guess we need to get hardware with faster bus speeds!

Logged

Scott Buckel
Monrovia, CA
Mike Guilbault
Full Member
***
Posts: 226


mike.guilbault
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2006, 05:39:22 AM »

Downloading on my G5 was quite a bit faster and I used a card reader rather than the camera.  I also noticed on my camera (while downloading to the G4) that the battery drain was incredible.  Anyway, it took about 3 minutes for about 35 images - so with a backup, this wasn't too bad.   I still have the CF card with the 71 images on it, so I'm going to try it today to see how long it takes.
Logged

Marc Rochkind
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1136


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2006, 07:39:05 AM »

Scott & Mike--

I've finished the Windows Beta 1.6.0B1 (with Preference Sets), and now I'm going to rework the main ingestion algorithm to eliminate the staging folder (and the extra copy), allow arbitrary images to be ingested (not only those on a card or card-like folder), and make the backup folders mirror the structure of the primary folders. These have been frequently-requested features.

--Marc
Logged

ScottBuckel
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2006, 09:15:43 AM »

Marc - sounds good to me.  Anything to make the computer aspects of digital photogaphy either faster or more efficient is great.
 
In the near future once I get everything up to my new standard I will likley be renaming many thousands of files and I overall like your interface and would like to use it for that project.

I was wondering if you were active in any of the local photography oriented groups around Boulder?
Logged

Scott Buckel
Monrovia, CA
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!