How sort video files within a folder?
Fruit2O
The file names are whatever the camera assigned to them (no
description). I have been sorting the folder by Date>Descending. This
woeks for my JPG files - but separates the AVI files (puts them on the
end of the list as if I had sorted by Type. It seems as if the AVI
files are not recognized by DATE. To partly solve the problem
temporarily, I placed all the JPG files in a separate folder and sorted
the same way. This works - but the AVI files are now separated from
the JPG files because they're in a separate folder (Both the JPG and
AVI files were taken with the same camera and I would like to keep them
together in the same folder which I would name first with the date
taken and then a short description). Now, with the AVI files all alone
in their own folder, I tried to sort them by Date in descending order.
However, no Date shows up in the listing with details. At the bottom
of the attribute list is an item which says 'More.' So I checked
everything that had the word Date in it and tried sorting by each of
them. The most obvious one (I thought) was Date Created. These dates
do not represent the date the movie files were taken. I need some help
in sorting all my files and, another thing that would be helpful would
be definitions of all the possible attributes for the AVI files. Hope
I chose the correct Groups to post this in. Perhaps someone can help
me out or point me in the right direction. I am using Vista Premium
Home Edition. By the way, the email address is true should someone
want to use it. Thank you............
Ken Maltby
"Fruit2O" <jz13...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hq8fj5t83d5jh1sgg...@4ax.com...
You posted to video groups with "DVD" in their name,
does that indicate that you intend to use the .jpg and .avi
files in a DVD production of some sort?
There are a number of programs that can author mixed
"slideshow" and video DVDs. Most include some support
for organizing your A/V source files.
www.videohelp.com has listings
Luck;
Ken
Fruit2O
my original dillema. How do I sort in a Vista folder?
Ken Maltby
> Thanks - this URL is useful. However, I still don't have an answer to
> my original dillema. How do I sort in a Vista folder?
>
And I still don't have an answer to my question, or
any reason as to why the organizing features I brought
up are not sufficient to your needs.
Luck;
Ken
Capt. Cave Man
wrote:
>
Sorting in ANY of Windows' file explorers is easy.
Netmask
> Now, with the AVI files all alone
> in their own folder, I tried to sort them by Date in descending order.
> However, no Date shows up in the listing with details. At the bottom
> of the attribute list is an item which says 'More.' So I checked
> everything that had the word Date in it and tried sorting by each of
> them. The most obvious one (I thought) was Date Created.
Try Date Modified
Fruit2O
Now, there's an answer!!! Thank you for cutting to the chase. I don't
know why it would work (especially if the clip WAS modified) but I'll
try it. I have one of those Vista Bibles and it doesn't even mention
the metadata. Also, there has to be a way to enter some of the
metadata and I want to learn how to do that.
Fruit2O
Forgive me Ken but I'm not a well man and spend most of my days with
severe head pain. So, it's very difficult for me to be prompt. I also
forget a lot and misunderstand a lot because the pain is very
distracting. In any case, I appreciate the help you and all the others
offer in these newsgroups. I'd be lost without you guys.
Capt. Cave Man
Well, then ADD the "date created" field and use that to sort.
Capt. Cave Man
Move to California and get a Cannabis prescription.
Fruit2O
Capt. Cave Man
It should have no problem working. Are you on an NTFS drive?
It should have a lot of data packed in the file header, so you should
have no problem sorting all those files by their initial creation date.
You right click on any of the existing field headers and you should get
a drop down list...
Oh wait... I am on Windows 7... maybe there is a difference.
Works that way for Vista as well, but not sure about earlier releases.
Netmask
Just to clarify when you add a field "date created" or whatever do you
actually get a bunch of dates? or is the problem when you click on the
column to sort nothing happens?
You could also check one of your avi files with MediaInfo (free program)
and post the log.
Mike S.
In article <hq8fj5t83d5jh1sgg...@4ax.com>,
Perhaps I'm missing something here; as Vista/7 might actually do things
differently from XP. In the old days, when you referred to "sorting" files
within a folder, it meant that the directory was actually re-written with
the file entries appearing in the order you specified. The verification
was to drop to command prompt, and get a "dir" listing with no sorting
applied. If the file names appeared in the order you expected, then the
folder had really been sorted.
AFAIK recent versions of Windows can't do anything of the type. When you
"sort" using Explorer, what you're really doing is modifying the order in
which the file names are displayed on the screen, and saving that
preference so that the next time Explorer opens that folder, it will do
the same thing. However, the actual order in which the file names appear
in the physical directory sector(s) is unchanged - it's basically the
order in which they were added there in the first place.
The upshot is that any program which relies on the Windows Explorer "view"
for the order in which files are to appear, may retain your preference;
but any other approach (like a DOS read) will fail to reflect your
"sorting" preferences.
Fruit2O
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:29:45 -0800, Capt. Cave Man
Fruit2O
Capt. Cave Man
wrote:
No, it didn't. No, not ever.
> The verification
>was to drop to command prompt, and get a "dir" listing with no sorting
>applied. If the file names appeared in the order you expected, then the
>folder had really been sorted.
You did not take any formal computer training. I can tell. If you
did, you were sleeping or whacked out on meth.
>AFAIK recent versions of Windows can't do anything of the type.
As far as you know, could mean nearly anything, but most likely means
that you do not know. I can verify that fact. The action you claim was
the norm never was the norm under ANY operating system.
> When you
>"sort" using Explorer, what you're really doing is modifying the order in
>which the file names are displayed on the screen,
No shit, Dip Tracy.
> and saving that
>preference so that the next time Explorer opens that folder, it will do
>the same thing. However, the actual order in which the file names appear
>in the physical directory sector(s) is unchanged - it's basically the
>order in which they were added there in the first place.
Always has been... always will be. Short of a defrag, it will not
change either. And even a defrag does not do it on an NTFS drive.
>The upshot is that any program which relies on the Windows Explorer "view"
>for the order in which files are to appear, may retain your preference;
>but any other approach (like a DOS read) will fail to reflect your
>"sorting" preferences.
You should take another course on DOS and computer basics.
Regardless of the OS, there are NONE that re-write files in a volume
they are contained in, simply because a dope like you thinks that the
actual file locations and write order should match what your sorting on
screen appears to be.
Again, there is NO OS anywhere that works they way you claim.
One can, however, perform a NEW write operation to a NEW directory and
make those write occur in a specific order, but there is not now, nor has
there ever been, a directory utility that re-writes a directory listing
to match the console view of it.
It simply makes NO sense to move a file once it is written. Even moves
within a volume from directory to directory do not re-write the file. It
merely changes the location reference to "where" the file is. The file
itself remains in the exact same location on the drive.
When you move it to a different volume, it actually does move.
Mike S.
In article <8u6lj5d10d54oeogp...@4ax.com>,
Not native to Windows itself. But the fact that direct disc access was
possible in earlier versions of Windows made it possible for third-party
utilities to do so:
http://www8.pair.com/dmurdoch/programs/lfnsort.htm
I used this for Win9x but, of course, it stopped working as of 2000/XP.
> You did not take any formal computer training. I can tell. If you
>did, you were sleeping or whacked out on meth.
No I didn't. But in the 20 years I've been posting to Usenet, it never was
a requirement to have a degree in the subject matter of a newsgroup in
order to post. Any now, as Usenet slowly dies, I certainly am not going to
restrict myself because of what someone like you has to say about it.
Refute the facts - great. But after all these years I'm far too
thick-skinned to be swayed by gratuitous insults.
Capt. Cave Man
wrote:
>In article <8u6lj5d10d54oeogp...@4ax.com>,
>Capt. Cave Man <I get my insurance online> wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:12:36 +0000 (UTC), rets...@xinap.moc (Mike S.)
>>wrote:
>>>Perhaps I'm missing something here; as Vista/7 might actually do things
>>>differently from XP. In the old days, when you referred to "sorting" files
>>>within a folder, it meant that the directory was actually re-written with
>>>the file entries appearing in the order you specified.
>>
>> No, it didn't. No, not ever.
>
>Not native to Windows itself. But the fact that direct disc access was
>possible in earlier versions of Windows made it possible for third-party
>utilities to do so:
>
>http://www8.pair.com/dmurdoch/programs/lfnsort.htm
>
>I used this for Win9x but, of course, it stopped working as of 2000/XP.
You ain't real bright, boy. The discussion was about OSes. An OS
author would not EVER perform an operation the way you described
(re-writing a listing to match a sorted view of a directory).
>> You did not take any formal computer training. I can tell. If you
>>did, you were sleeping or whacked out on meth.
>
>No I didn't. But in the 20 years I've been posting to Usenet, it never was
>a requirement to have a degree in the subject matter of a newsgroup in
>order to post.
You obviously missed the point of my comment.
> Any now, as Usenet slowly dies, I certainly am not going to
>restrict myself because of what someone like you has to say about it.
When you make retarded, false comments about the hardware we work with,
you are going to get it back in your face, you stupid fuck.
Nice snippage of ALL the points that did just that. How convenient for
you. It still does not change the facts.
>Refute the facts - great. But after all these years I'm far too
>thick-skinned to be swayed by gratuitous insults.
Telling you that the remarks you made were false was NOT an insult, you
stupid fuck. And despite your claim of thick skin, it DID have an effect
or you would not have conveniently snipped the portions of the post that
proved just how stupid you really are.