[APG 2.5B2 OSX] 'Stack by N' not working  

Archive of all bug reports. This forum is closed - you cannot create new topics or comments here! If you think a specific topic was moved here by mistake, please contact the moderators!
no avatar
Judy-A
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:17 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada

[APG 2.5B2 OSX] 'Stack by N' not working

by Judy-A » Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:51 pm

Source images have been processed in Photomatix at two different settings. Filenames have been manually edited.

1. Preferences>Settings>Images>Stacks set to 'Don't create stack'.

2. Load images. The default view in Groups panel has images correctly sorted in alphanumeric order.

3. Select all and 'Create Stacks by N'=2, Index 0

Result:
Images are grouped in stacks of 2 images, but are not grouped according to alphanumeric filename order. I can't find any logic to the sorting. (See screen shots.)

I have tried with various sets of images and get the same confusing results. Deleting preferences didn't help.

'Stack by N' (without the index choice) was working in Beta1.

Judy Arndt

APG 2.5.0 Beta 2
Mac Pro Quad Core Intel Xeon
Mac OS 10.6.4



no avatar
Judy-A
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:17 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada

by Judy-A » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:14 pm

I loaded a set of images output from Capture NX2 at varying exposure values. With these images, 'Stack by N' worked correctly.

All images in both tests are 16-bit TIFFs.

Is there specific EXIF info that is required for 'Stack by N' to work?

Judy

no avatar
mediavets
Moderator
 
Posts: 14160
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.

by mediavets » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:53 pm

Judy-A wrote:I loaded a set of images output from Capture NX2 at varying exposure values. With these images, 'Stack by N' worked correctly.

All images in both tests are 16-bit TIFFs.

Is there specific EXIF info that is required for 'Stack by N' to work?

Judy

But I guess these images didn't have the same 'style' of filename? xxxxx_1 and xxxxx_2 and so on?

I don't see why this should make a difference - just grasping at straws really.

I also wondered whether the time/date data in the EXIF might for some reason be affecting the stacking-by-N in your failing image set.
Last edited by mediavets on Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Andrew Stephens
Many different Nodal Ninja and Agnos pano heads. Merlin/Panogear mount with Papywizard on Nokia Internet tablets.
Nikon D5100 and D40, Sigma 8mm f3.5 FE, Nikon 10.5mm FE, 35mm, 50mm, 18-55mm, 70-210mm. Promote control.

User avatar
AlexandreJ
Kolor Team
 
Posts: 5911
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: Francin, France

by AlexandreJ » Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:23 am

Judy-A wrote:Is there specific EXIF info that is required for 'Stack by N' to work?

It's based on an alphabetical sort only.
I will try to rename an image serie like your setup to see if I can detect an issue.

User avatar
AlexandreJ
Kolor Team
 
Posts: 5911
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: Francin, France

by AlexandreJ » Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:23 am

Issue 383 opened

User avatar
AlexandreJ
Kolor Team
 
Posts: 5911
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: Francin, France

by AlexandreJ » Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:43 pm

Tried to reproduce but without luck. I'll need these tiff files.



no avatar
Judy-A
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:17 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada

by Judy-A » Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:38 am

The source files were from two different source folders. For example:

/Volumes/..../Photomatix-light sky/DSC_2764_1.tif

/Volumes/..../Photomatix-saturated landscape/DSC_2764_2.tif

When I moved all of the TIFFs to the same folder, they stacked correctly.

Is APG sorting using the entire file path as filename?

If the images have to be from the same folder to stack correctly, then the user needs to know this.

Judy

User avatar
AlexandreJ
Kolor Team
 
Posts: 5911
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: Francin, France

by AlexandreJ » Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:43 am

Oh ! That's the issue. We do an alphabetic sorting based on the full name not the short name.

It could be easily fixed but that may leads to some strange behavior. I prefer to postpone that issue for after 2.5 release.


Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests