Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-20-2009, 11:02 PM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Norway
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 74
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by calicojack Quote
I just checked my K10D and my wife's K200D. Both cameras have the ability to set the folder name to "Date" in the set up menu.
Brian
If you use date you are gonna get folders named like this

100_0112 (xxx_mmdd)
101_0113
102_0114

the 100 101 102 etc sequense starts on 100 again when you empty your card.

So why the 3 first numbers? They only mess things up. If their is any reason the folder name should have this format, why couldn't it be 009 (xyy) (x could be wathever but it has to stay the same att all time.)

01-21-2009, 06:15 AM   #17
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
The folder name consists of 2 parts
a directory number (3 characters, 100-999, unique)
a directory name (5 characters)

QuoteOriginally posted by Phaser Quote
the 100 101 102 etc sequense starts on 100 again when you empty your card.
The spec states that if no directories exist, any valid directory number can be choosen. So this is a function of your camera; if you don't like it, buy another one

QuoteOriginally posted by Phaser Quote
So why the 3 first numbers? They only mess things up. If their is any reason the folder name should have this format, why couldn't it be 009 (xyy) (x could be wathever but it has to stay the same att all time.)
The spec states that a directory number may not be duplicated. So using the directory number for years is simply not allowed (possibly unfortunate).

PS
I will try to find some more info why the name was build as it is.
01-21-2009, 06:28 AM   #18
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,155
QuoteOriginally posted by Phaser Quote
If you use date you are gonna get folders named like this

100_0112 (xxx_mmdd)
101_0113
102_0114

the 100 101 102 etc sequense starts on 100 again when you empty your card.

So why the 3 first numbers? They only mess things up. If their is any reason the folder name should have this format, why couldn't it be 009 (xyy) (x could be wathever but it has to stay the same att all time.)
It's called an industry standard.
Design rule for Camera File system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
01-21-2009, 09:28 AM   #19
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Norway
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 74
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
My orignal question was why the pentax ............
I understand it's an industri standard.
So i change my question to Why is the industry standard useless?

If they gonna have directory names i don't understand why they couldn't have come up with anything that actually can be usefull? It's eaysy. You name the folders after the date and maybe a 2 or 3 digit code att the end of the name. (yyyymmddxxx) Voila, you got a unique folder name which sorts automaticaly in any OS.

And i repat that i don't see this as a big problem, I only find it a bit anoying.

01-21-2009, 09:41 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,155
QuoteOriginally posted by Phaser Quote
My orignal question was why the pentax ............
I understand it's an industri standard.
So i change my question to Why is the industry standard useless?


If they gonna have directory names i don't understand why they couldn't have come up with anything that actually can be usefull? It's eaysy. You name the folders after the date and maybe a 2 or 3 digit code att the end of the name. (yyyymmddxxx) Voila, you got a unique folder name which sorts automaticaly in any OS.

And i repat that i don't see this as a big problem, I only find it a bit anoying.
You do realize that in true computerese a file can only have an 8 character name? Would it be more or less useless to have directory names that cannot be read across all platforms because of a naming convention that doesn't follow the limitations of non OS based filenaming?
01-21-2009, 10:29 AM   #21
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Norway
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 74
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
You do realize that in true computerese a file can only have an 8 character name? Would it be more or less useless to have directory names that cannot be read across all platforms because of a naming convention that doesn't follow the limitations of non OS based filenaming?
make it yymmddxx then. don't need 4digits in the year (91years too 2100) and two xx gives you 99 difrent foldernames for one day. that should be plenty for anyone.
Do you actually need the x's att all?
01-21-2009, 10:43 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,155
I'd suggest you take it up with the people that wrote the standards and see why they did it that way.
01-21-2009, 10:47 AM   #23
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 66
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
You do realize that in true computerese a file can only have an 8 character name? Would it be more or less useless to have directory names that cannot be read across all platforms because of a naming convention that doesn't follow the limitations of non OS based filenaming?
I am not aware of any modern platform (i.e. 15 years and younger) with this limitation.

01-21-2009, 11:15 AM   #24
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,475
QuoteOriginally posted by denisv Quote
I am not aware of any modern platform (i.e. 15 years and younger) with this limitation.
Actually, I believe that many OS's still have this limitation. It is just kept out of sight. The OS resolves whatever is seen as a long file name to an 8 character equivalent internally. Most people never see this, but it is still there and becomes visible most often in smaller electronic devices such as cameras that are more efficient with a simpler OS (i.e. limited user control over the file system).
01-21-2009, 11:39 AM   #25
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,155
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
Actually, I believe that many OS's still have this limitation. It is just kept out of sight. The OS resolves whatever is seen as a long file name to an 8 character equivalent internally. Most people never see this, but it is still there and becomes visible most often in smaller electronic devices such as cameras that are more efficient with a simpler OS (i.e. limited user control over the file system).
I recently went through a bunch of my old data discs that I wanted to back up to hard drives and discovered that a whole bunch of them had filenames that had been truncated down to 7 characters and a tilde (~). This would have been off of a Win98 machine from around 2001 or so.
01-21-2009, 11:46 AM   #26
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
in fact, if you are not careful, and shell out to MS Dos window to do batch rename it truncates the names to 8 characters. This is part of the underlying system in XP also.
01-21-2009, 04:06 PM   #27
Veteran Member
MoiVous's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 671
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
in fact, if you are not careful, and shell out to MS Dos window to do batch rename it truncates the names to 8 characters. This is part of the underlying system in XP also.
Actually not quite. WinXP (and back to WinNT) are 32 bit operating systems using NTFS. This allows for up to 255 UniCode characters in the file name. Win9x/ME used FAT and its various incarnations.

The 8.3 convention is a left over from MS-DOS (and its various incarnartions back to CP/M), but NTFS operating systems will display an 8.3 file name by truncating the last 2 characters to a ~ and a digit. Its not needed though. If you go to a DOS prompt and type CD\Program Files it will get you there as easily as CD\Progra~1. It might display it differently, but its the same folder.

FAT16 took over from DOS FAT (or FAT12) using VFAT (a special driver in Win95sr1) to get around the file name length problem but tried to stay compatible with the early version. There were problems if you had lots of files with the first 6 letters.

SD cards are FAT32 formatted . FAT32 allowed for longer names natively - so the SD card should have no difficulties, but must digital cameras must conform to writing files as per the EXIF spec.

Thats because the EXIF design spec specifies 8.3 DOS FAT file format. The spec actually states that the media uses DOS FAT (item 1.2 in the Introduction). This is probably a result of allowing for lots of different storage media.
01-21-2009, 10:24 PM   #28
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
Little correction to prevent confusion

QuoteOriginally posted by MoiVous Quote
Thats because the EXIF design spec specifies 8.3 DOS FAT file format. The spec actually states that the media uses DOS FAT (item 1.2 in the Introduction). This is probably a result of allowing for lots of different storage media.
It's not the exif design spec but the dcf spec. The link however points to the correct document

Just trying to prevent confusion :ugh:

Last edited by sterretje; 01-21-2009 at 10:36 PM. Reason: Added title
01-22-2009, 12:39 AM   #29
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
Standard is not useless

QuoteOriginally posted by Phaser Quote
My orignal question was why the pentax ............
I understand it's an industri standard.
So i change my question to Why is the industry standard useless?

If they gonna have directory names i don't understand why they couldn't have come up with anything that actually can be usefull? It's eaysy. You name the folders after the date and maybe a 2 or 3 digit code att the end of the name. (yyyymmddxxx) Voila, you got a unique folder name which sorts automaticaly in any OS.

And i repat that i don't see this as a big problem, I only find it a bit anoying.
I think that the standard is quite clever. I don't agree with the choice of the proprietary FAT filesystem, but it was a sensible one. At the time that the spec was written (1998), FAT was the most used file system (DOS / Windows) so it guaranteed that it could be used on the majority of computer systems.

The choosen naming convention for directories is sensible as well. They don't force something (that in future might not work) and allow users some flexibility. You e.g. want dates and someone else wants a subject (100PARTY, 101HOUSE, 102OUTDO). Your camera might not allow for this (I have not yet bothered about changing the names) but the standard allows it.

I don't know the reason for the split and why they have to start at 100. I can think of reasons but might be completely wrong.

By using a unique number in the beginning, processors don't have to analyze the full name but only the first 3 characters. This speeds up the processing. And starting at 100 makes sense with sorting. You probably have seen it in the file browser (e.g. windows explorer) where the list is 1.jpg, 10.jpg, 2.jpg, 3.jpg etc. By starting at 100, this became a non issue. 001PENTA would have done as well, you may argue, but would have required more processor time when converting a number to a string (as it now needs to be padded with a variable number of zeroes).
Keep in mind that the standard was written for a variety of devices who do not necessarily have the processing power of the processors in PCs. In 1998 the highest clock frequency in PCs was something around 400MHz (I guess) while the microcontrollers in e.g. printers were probably running on something below 20MHz.
01-22-2009, 02:16 AM   #30
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Norway
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 74
Original Poster
Ok I have read some in the dcf spec linked to in the thread. (thanks)
It seems like the 3 first numbers is importent to be between 100 and 999 The 5 next numbers is free as long as it's 1 byte digits.
I see this is to make all electronic devices compatible etc. etc. But i don't see why the 3first digits shoul need to change for every new date. They could be 109 (1YY)
The 5 last digidts allready change after the date so that should work too.
Then the code would be "1YY_MMDD" And you end up with a folder name that can be used for something.
The way it is now, you (i do) copy the folders from the memorycard which has 4 -5 folders. One for each day in the time it took to fil up the memorycard. Named 100_mmdd 101_.. 102 103 etc. and you place them in a directory where you have lots of other folders named 100 101 102 etc. because you are to lasy to sort them in subjects or dates or wathever. That makes a mess. So for me at least it would be nice to be able to sort the folders by date.
Dosn't seems like their is anyone geting anoyed by this so it's just me beeing silly


Edit:
Found some more in the dcf spec. It says something about a reader have to show the directorynumber and filename in some way and it then can use just the three first digits of the folder name. so my theory won't work with todays standard. But it would be nice if you could configure it yourself if you don't need it to folow the standard.

Last edited by Phaser; 01-22-2009 at 05:32 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, date, dslr, folder, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
k-x: Issue with folder name?? yusuf Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 01-08-2011 10:46 AM
Folder/file name GordZ Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 02-11-2010 06:12 PM
SD card folder partitions? FHPhotographer Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 01-18-2010 12:43 PM
New Fuji medium format folder LittleSkink General Talk 18 10-09-2008 04:19 AM
Folder organization/archiving joefru Pentax DSLR Discussion 47 05-04-2008 06:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top