iPhoto Fails to get my Digital Camera Movies!
Mike Cox
camera to my OS X Mac. Linux can do it with gphoto2, so why can't an easy
to use OS like Mac do it?
Rgdawson
simple. because AVI is a crappy format, so why import them?
plus, why would a photo program import movies? that doesn't make sense.
get a real dv camera and report back, thanks.
ZnU
"Mike Cox" <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What version? I think Apple added support for movie imports in iPhoto 5.
If you don't have that, you can import movies using Image Capture (see
your Applications folder).
--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
Mike Cox
"Rgdawson" <rg...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rgdon-2A89DF....@news.uswest.net...
> "Mike Cox" <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is that? It grabs my photos but not my AVI movies from my digital
> > camera to my OS X Mac. Linux can do it with gphoto2, so why can't an
easy
> > to use OS like Mac do it?
>
> simple. because AVI is a crappy format, so why import them?
>
> plus, why would a photo program import movies? that doesn't make sense.
Well, since my Digital Photo Camera can also take movies, that's why!
> get a real dv camera and report back, thanks.
Well, my digital PHOTO camera can take movies and I want them on my Mac. I
have OS X Panther, which is not that great.
Tim Smith
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > Why is that? It grabs my photos but not my AVI movies from my digital
> > camera to my OS X Mac. Linux can do it with gphoto2, so why can't an easy
> > to use OS like Mac do it?
>
> What version? I think Apple added support for movie imports in iPhoto 5.
>
> If you don't have that, you can import movies using Image Capture (see
> your Applications folder).
But can you do anything useful after you import them? Since he is
talking about a camera that takes photos and movies, I'm assuming he is
talking about a still camera that can also make movies (which is fairly
common nowadays) rather than something specifically meant as a movie
camera.
My Sony DSC-P93, for example, can make movies. The Mac can play them
with Quicktime, but cannot edit them with iMovie or Final Cut Express 2.
Furthermore, Quicktime Pro cannot convert them to any format that can be
edited.
Here's information on this:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61608
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=165280
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=42996
--
--Tim Smith
Rgdawson
"Mike Cox" <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, since my Digital Photo Camera can also take movies, that's why!
yes, but the underlying rules are, if it doesn't provide sufficient
quality, apple won't support it.
> > get a real dv camera and report back, thanks.
>
> Well, my digital PHOTO camera can take movies and I want them on my Mac. I
> have OS X Panther, which is not that great.
then use imovie. panther has nothing to do with this, that's the os, not
an application like iPhoto or iMovie. yes, it does appear iPhoto 5 does
support some camera's ability to import small movies.
http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/import.html
or just use one of the many avi import programs here.
ZnU
<reply_in_group-5CD...@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
Newer cameras capture movies in MPEG-4, which QuickTime fully supports.
C Lund
(these lines are here because UPC is being difficult - ignore)
(these lines are here because UPC is being difficult - ignore)
In article <39hlqcF...@individual.net>,
"Mike Cox" <mikeco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If nothing else works, you can simply drag the movies off your camera
and onto your mac as if it was an external HD.
BTW: AFAIK iPhoto is for handling photos, not films - which could be
why it won't import your films. Maybe iMovie would do the trick?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
MarkW
> plus, why would a photo program import movies? that doesn't make sense.
>
> get a real dv camera and report back, thanks.
That's exactly backwards, from my point of view--I'd much rather
intermix digital photos and video clips in a photo album than edit and
produce DVDs (possibly including low-res versions of still photos). I
do have DV camera (which I use less often now that I have a digital
camera with VGA 30fps movie mode) but even when I use the DV camera, I
often separate the scenes into clips that I can import into the photo
album software for viewing along with the related stills.
Super Spinner
> simple. because AVI is a crappy format, so why import them?
AVI isn't a video format, it's a general purpose video *container file*
format. AVI files can contain any type of video (mpeg, mpeg2, mpeg4,
wmv, sorrenson, etc).
Erick Bryce Wong
Yes, yes, but you have to admit AVI is a pretty crappy container format that
has been extended in all manner of non-standard ways because of its ancient,
short-sighted design. QuickTime (and by extension MPEG-4) and the open
source upstart Matroska are much more versatile containers. Even Microsoft
has long moved on to the proprietary WMV/ASF formats.
-- Erick
JEDIDIAH
Requiring multiple programs to service one peripheral seems clumsy.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
C Lund
(these lines are here because UPC is being difficult - ignore)
(these lines are here because UPC is being difficult - ignore)
(these lines are here because UPC is being difficult - ignore)
(these lines are here because UPC is being difficult - ignore)
(these lines are here because UPC is being difficult - ignore)
In article <423597ef$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
wrote:
> > BTW: AFAIK iPhoto is for handling photos, not films - which could be
> > why it won't import your films. Maybe iMovie would do the trick?
> Requiring multiple programs to service one peripheral seems clumsy.
While you do have a point, I still don't see why one should expect an
app that is primarily meant for arranging *images* to import *films*.
iPhoto isn't primarily a peripheral servicing app.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
JEDIDIAH
Given the current "shutter speed" of digicams, it actually makes
a remarkable amount of sense for a "mere photo application" to be able to
deal with the video that a "still camera" produces. Such video makes it easier
to capture shots that you might otherwise have missed.
"Video" is nothing more than a rapidly captured sequence of photos.
Infact, 35MM still cameras have been used in motion pictures to this
effect.
Tim Smith
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> While you do have a point, I still don't see why one should expect an
> app that is primarily meant for arranging *images* to import *films*.
> iPhoto isn't primarily a peripheral servicing app.
Well, one reason to expect it to import films from cameras is that it
imports films from the hard disk. If you select "Add to library..."
from the file menu, and give it a directory tree that contains both
photos and films, it imports the films along with the photos.
Thus, expecting it to do the same thing with cameras is reasonable.
--
--Tim Smith
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/15/05 10:33 AM, in article
reply_in_group-0CC...@news1.west.earthlink.net, "Tim Smith"
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
Possibly because until very recently the video from the still cameras really
reeked, it wasn't considered a good thing to do. Or maybe each camera mfg
does it in different ways prevented it from being easily incorporated.
Maybe a future version will support it.
JEDIDIAH
That's a rather lame excuse.
There are only so many possible variations. First, the camera itself
has to acquire the video. This will likely involve some bog standard parts
(like a BT848) and rather mundane codecs.
These are CHEAP digicams we're talking about here. They only have
so much they can throw at the problem in terms of resources and production
cost.
>
> Maybe a future version will support it.
>
Rgdawson
> "Video" is nothing more than a rapidly captured sequence of photos.
well, it has an extra component called Audio, which make it quite a bit
different than a stream of pictures. Hard to service with a picture
program.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
If it treated the camera as just another part of the filesystem, then it
would allready be able to import from the camera in this way. Kinda like
how my Linux system treats my digicam :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCNzvTd90bcYOAWPYRAo1iAKCqbms+U/pu/qoS9TfDek0RflRDlQCfTCsl
WvMu5EKP9qDiK1eooJyRGVg=
=2fsJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Have you ever noticed that at trade shows
Microsoft is always the one giving away stress balls?
MR ED
3/15/05 11:14 AM:
I'm doing some consulting work for a startup in this area. Providing video
import support across a broad range of still cameras is a friggin'
nightmare. There are all kinds of crazy codecs being used, often without
full compliance to the proper specs. All kinds of crazy file system issues,
and other problems.
Though I agree, Apple should work on this.
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/15/05 1:14 PM, in article 42373415$1...@127.0.0.1, "JEDIDIAH"
<je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
We'll have reading lessons later... ;-)
I didn't give excuses, I merely gave possibilities.
Personally, I think a movie camera is for movies and a still camera is for
stills. I've not yet see one do the other that produced acceptable results.
But that is just me.
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/15/05 1:47 PM, in article jnqjg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim Richardson"
<war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
You can do that right now, just not with iPhoto.
Peter Köhlmann
>
> On 3/15/05 1:47 PM, in article jnqjg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim
> Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
< snip >
>> If it treated the camera as just another part of the filesystem, then it
>> would allready be able to import from the camera in this way. Kinda like
>> how my Linux system treats my digicam :)
>>
> You can do that right now, just not with iPhoto.
Actually, if iPhoto "did it", it would not be part of the file system
Linux treats most digicams like a hot-plugable disk, so *any* app on the
machine can access the photos/movies on that camera
A much saner approach than doing it with an app like iPhoto
--
Yield to Temptation ... it may not pass your way again.
-- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
Andrew Templeman
Actually the previous version supports it.
Before iPhoto was image capture. this is still installed in the
applications folder and I still use it, because I use other applications
to handle my pictures.
It's just that the default with a new install is to use iPhoto to import
from a digital camera. This is a good thing for novices and most users.
If you run image capture and look at its preferences you can select any
program to run when you plug in a camera. probably best to select one
that can download things of the camera
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/15/05 3:16 PM, in article d17iov$3hb$01$2...@news.t-online.com, "Peter
Köhlmann" <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin virus.scr Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3/15/05 1:47 PM, in article jnqjg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim
>> Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>>> If it treated the camera as just another part of the filesystem, then it
>>> would allready be able to import from the camera in this way. Kinda like
>>> how my Linux system treats my digicam :)
>>>
>> You can do that right now, just not with iPhoto.
>
> Actually, if iPhoto "did it", it would not be part of the file system
> Linux treats most digicams like a hot-plugable disk, so *any* app on the
> machine can access the photos/movies on that camera
>
> A much saner approach than doing it with an app like iPhoto
I don't know about saner, but I also don't see anything wrong with it. Nor
do I see a problem with using iPhoto with it.
You can set the default action to a number of different settings with OSX,
just out of box, it is set to use iPhoto.
Peter Köhlmann
>
>
>
> On 3/15/05 3:16 PM, in article d17iov$3hb$01$2...@news.t-online.com, "Peter
> Köhlmann" <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> begin virus.scr Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 3/15/05 1:47 PM, in article jnqjg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim
>>> Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>>> If it treated the camera as just another part of the filesystem, then
>>>> it would allready be able to import from the camera in this way. Kinda
>>>> like how my Linux system treats my digicam :)
>>>>
>>> You can do that right now, just not with iPhoto.
>>
>> Actually, if iPhoto "did it", it would not be part of the file system
>> Linux treats most digicams like a hot-plugable disk, so *any* app on the
>> machine can access the photos/movies on that camera
>>
>> A much saner approach than doing it with an app like iPhoto
>
> I don't know about saner, but I also don't see anything wrong with it.
Well, having it general purpose is saner
> Nor do I see a problem with using iPhoto with it.
>
I do. It is no longer general purpose. You have to go through iPhoto then
even if you want to access the pictures with a different app, for whatever
reason
> You can set the default action to a number of different settings with OSX,
> just out of box, it is set to use iPhoto.
And that is the wrong approach. Plug it in, have it as part of the fs and
access it with whatever tool you feel like. That is the right way, all
other is half-assed
--
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.
Rgdawson
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> If it treated the camera as just another part of the filesystem, then it
> would allready be able to import from the camera in this way. Kinda like
> how my Linux system treats my digicam :)
duh, it already does that, the camera auto mounts just like a hard
drive, what he is trying to do is use the wrong kind of software to
support a crappy file format.
Rgdawson
Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Actually, if iPhoto "did it", it would not be part of the file system
> Linux treats most digicams like a hot-plugable disk, so *any* app on the
> machine can access the photos/movies on that camera
>
> A much saner approach than doing it with an app like iPhoto
the mac os already does that, what he is trying to do is use iPhoto in a
way it wasn't intended. there's 100's of programs that will work with
this file, but he choose iPhoto which is mainly set up for images.
Rgdawson
Peter Köhlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> And that is the wrong approach. Plug it in, have it as part of the fs and
> access it with whatever tool you feel like. That is the right way, all
> other is half-assed
yes, and iPhoto gives you the choice either way.
Peter Köhlmann
What choice is given by iPhoto? To treat the camera like a disk-fs?
Since when is such a function part of a userspace app?
It should be exclusivly confined to a fs-driver, and nothing else
--
All things are possible, except skiing thru a revolving door.
Tim Smith
> Personally, I think a movie camera is for movies and a still camera is for
> stills. I've not yet see one do the other that produced acceptable
> results. But that is just me.
My Sony DSC-P93 produces MPEG-1 movies at 640x480 30fps that are quite
acceptable for things like putting on the web.
--
--Tim Smith
Rgdawson
> You can set the default action to a number of different settings with OSX,
> just out of box, it is set to use iPhoto.
just for clarification, iPhoto is set to ASK the very first time it is
used.
buzz off
<Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
You are absolutely right, Pete. The people at Apple must be insane to
ship their computers with a general-purpose application that the user
could use to import, catalog, edit, display, and archive photographs..
They should take the linux approach. Once the user has loaded the
operating system, the user should search around the Internet for some
cryptically named applications that do part of the job.
Peter Köhlmann
> In article <d17jn0$3hb$01$4...@news.t-online.com>, Peter Kˆ hlmann
> <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> begin virus.scr Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/15/05 3:16 PM, in article d17iov$3hb$01$2...@news.t-online.com,
You want to tell us that there are actually people even dumber than
TravelinMan or Oxford? In other words, there is you?
Who would have thought that?
--
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
Liam Slider
<snip>
>
> You are absolutely right, Pete. The people at Apple must be insane to
> ship their computers with a general-purpose application that the user
> could use to import, catalog, edit, display, and archive photographs..
Nobody said that.
>
> They should take the linux approach. Once the user has loaded the
> operating system, the user should search around the Internet for some
> cryptically named applications that do part of the job.
That's funny, I didn't have to do that.
JEDIDIAH
What happened to the "tight integration" of iLife?
JEDIDIAH
>
>
>
> On 3/15/05 1:14 PM, in article 42373415$1...@127.0.0.1, "JEDIDIAH"
><je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-03-15, Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/15/05 10:33 AM, in article
>>> reply_in_group-0CC...@news1.west.earthlink.net, "Tim Smith"
>>> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <clund-1DB119....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>> There are only so many possible variations. First, the camera itself
>> has to acquire the video. This will likely involve some bog standard parts
>> (like a BT848) and rather mundane codecs.
>> These are CHEAP digicams we're talking about here. They only have
>> so much they can throw at the problem in terms of resources and production
>> cost.
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe a future version will support it.
>>>
> We'll have reading lessons later... ;-)
>
> I didn't give excuses, I merely gave possibilities.
>
> Personally, I think a movie camera is for movies and a still camera is for
> stills. I've not yet see one do the other that produced acceptable results.
> But that is just me.
Yes, it's just you.
ILM is not limited in this manner.
Motion picture is nothing more than a stream of 35M photos timed at
a given interval.
TravelinMan
wrote:
> On 2005-03-15, Rgdawson <rg...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> "Video" is nothing more than a rapidly captured sequence of photos.
> >
> > well, it has an extra component called Audio, which make it quite a bit
> > different than a stream of pictures. Hard to service with a picture
> > program.
>
> What happened to the "tight integration" of iLife?
Nothing.
It's the Linux loonies who think that a photo application is supposed to
handle movies and audio.
Use iMovie to import movies.
Or is 'iMovie' too ambiguous to you, too?
Rgdawson
wrote:
> >> "Video" is nothing more than a rapidly captured sequence of photos.
> >
> > well, it has an extra component called Audio, which make it quite a bit
> > different than a stream of pictures. Hard to service with a picture
> > program.
>
> What happened to the "tight integration" of iLife?
Why are you being such an idiot JEDIDIAH.
iMovie is PERFECT for his movies, while iPhoto is PERFECT for his still
images. There is TIGHT integration between two, but using the correct
type of program for the data type is a smart first step.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:30:21 -0600,
Then you can't do it, since if you could, iPhoto would happily
import from the mount point that the camera was mounted to.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCN60ad90bcYOAWPYRAm9rAJkBEFdu4db3CBugHHgyl1FhS8nTawCgrYI4
MyFEk11UE2CJh3dT0MpQa6k=
=a5BB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"And the faults in bad software can be so subtle as to be practically
theological."
- Bruce Sterling - The Hacker Crackdown
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/15/05 9:50 PM, in article r1nkg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim Richardson"
<war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
???
Iphoto is just one way of accessing a camera. There are others, and you can
make them the default if you like.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:51 -0600,
We were talking in the context of importing a movie from a digital
camera, right? so the problem, would be that iPhoto lacks the ability to
import the movie, from anywhere?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD4DBQFCN8RPd90bcYOAWPYRAliBAJiZGB/ThrwcSQ5Qgh8z8lHhrTQIAJ4kmuXe
XHPfSQcwapDtgQzv4Jh7hw==
=QGpL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The United States of America: Screwing with the
English Language for over 200 years.
--Mike Sphar
Rgdawson
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> We were talking in the context of importing a movie from a digital
> camera, right? so the problem, would be that iPhoto lacks the ability to
> import the movie, from anywhere?
with the new version 5, it does support some camera's ability to import
movies. it's unclear which models are supported however.
C Lund
(these lines are here because UPC is being difficult - ignore)
In article <4236eb1b$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
wrote:
> > While you do have a point, I still don't see why one should expect an
> > app that is primarily meant for arranging *images* to import *films*.
> > iPhoto isn't primarily a peripheral servicing app.
> Given the current "shutter speed" of digicams, it actually makes
> a remarkable amount of sense for a "mere photo application" to be able to
> deal with the video that a "still camera" produces. Such video makes it easier
> to capture shots that you might otherwise have missed.
> "Video" is nothing more than a rapidly captured sequence of photos.
A rapidly captured sequence of photos with an audio track...
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
(these lines are here because UPC is being difficult - ignore)
In article <42379fed$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
wrote:
> What happened to the "tight integration" of iLife?
"Tight integration of iLife" does not mean "iLife is a jumbo app that
does everything except the dishes". iLife is a suite of apps. iPhoto
is the app that handles photos. iMovie is the app that handles movies.
Of course, one might debate whether iLife should have included an
"iCameraDump" app that imports whatever files a camera has, or maybe
let both iPhoto and iMovie start whenever a camera is plugged in.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Peter Köhlmann
Oh, it is just the "Linux loonies" wo think that your whole argumentation
about "integration" is complete bullshit, if a program to access a digital
camera isn't able to process all the types of data that camera produces
As a typical Mac-user (dumb beyond imagination, take TravelinMan as example)
one would assume that to be the case, wouldn't one?
So why do you think that a typical Mac-user would actually know something,
for example the difference of data formats on a digital camera?
Mark Kent
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> espoused:
Umm, no, that's video & audio, at least, generally considered to be
so within the broadcast industry.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Don't stop to stomp ants when the elephants are stampeding.
Kier
> In article <d17jn0$3hb$01$4...@news.t-online.com>, Peter K hlmann
> <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> begin virus.scr Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/15/05 3:16 PM, in article d17iov$3hb$01$2...@news.t-online.com, "Peter
You're too stupid even to find your own arse, it seems to me. Other
computer users actually show intelligence, and thus have no problems. And
why should I search the net for what's installed right here on my computer?
--
Kier
TravelinMan
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
Except it's not a problem. The app is acting as it's designed.
Here, let me spell it out again:
iPhoto is for photos
iMovie is for movies
If you want to import a movie, you use iMovie.
Let me guess, when you try to pound in a nail with a screwdriver and it
doesn't work very well, you blame the screwdriver, right?
TravelinMan
Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin virus.scr TravelinMan wrote:
>
> > In article <42379fed$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-03-15, Rgdawson <rg...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Video" is nothing more than a rapidly captured sequence of photos.
> >> >
> >> > well, it has an extra component called Audio, which make it quite a bit
> >> > different than a stream of pictures. Hard to service with a picture
> >> > program.
> >>
> >> What happened to the "tight integration" of iLife?
> >
> > Nothing.
> >
> > It's the Linux loonies who think that a photo application is supposed to
> > handle movies and audio.
> >
> > Use iMovie to import movies.
> >
> > Or is 'iMovie' too ambiguous to you, too?
>
> Oh, it is just the "Linux loonies" wo think that your whole argumentation
> about "integration" is complete bullshit, if a program to access a digital
> camera isn't able to process all the types of data that camera produces
That would be a silly argument.
For example, your KDE desktop has access to a hard drive. Can the
desktop process all the types of data that the hard drive contains?
Of course not.
The average intelligent user is going to think 'iPhoto is for photos'
and 'iMovie is for movies'.
>
> As a typical Mac-user (dumb beyond imagination, take TravelinMan as example)
> one would assume that to be the case, wouldn't one?
No, one wouldn't.
For example, You can access the camera with Microsoft Word. Would you
expect Word to be able to manipulate photos? Again, of course not -
unless you're a Linux loony trying to win debating points.
I should point out that Linux apps don't work the way you're suggesting
either.
> So why do you think that a typical Mac-user would actually know something,
> for example the difference of data formats on a digital camera?
Why should a Mac user care? We have apps that handle all that for us.
Peter Köhlmann
Leave it to TravelinIdiot to not understand the difference between a
"Desktop" and an application.
> The average intelligent user is going to think 'iPhoto is for photos'
> and 'iMovie is for movies'.
>
>>
>> As a typical Mac-user (dumb beyond imagination, take TravelinMan as
>> example) one would assume that to be the case, wouldn't one?
>
> No, one wouldn't.
>
> For example, You can access the camera with Microsoft Word. Would you
> expect Word to be able to manipulate photos?
Not manipulate them, but import to put on a page, certainly
> Again, of course not -
> unless you're a Linux loony trying to win debating points.
>
Well, you imply that Mac-users are stupid enough to think they could use
Word to manipulate images.
Linux users generally are not that stupid. And they generally don't build
such idiotic strawmen
> I should point out that Linux apps don't work the way you're suggesting
> either.
>
Interesting. Which app does not work what way, TravelinBoy?
>> So why do you think that a typical Mac-user would actually know
>> something, for example the difference of data formats on a digital
>> camera?
>
> Why should a Mac user care? We have apps that handle all that for us.
Really? So a typical Mac-user, in his infinite stupidity, starts iPhoto to
access his digicam, and then iPhote will magically know that it does not
handle movies and hand the job over to iMovie? Automatically, *without* any
user-intervention? Is *this* what you want to tell us?
--
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/15/05 5:39 PM, in article
6nKZd.11757$cN6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tim Smith"
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
In your opinion, of course. In mine, I haven't seen any that I would
consider acceptable. Kind of like the 'stills' that some digicams do.
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/15/05 11:29 PM, in article frskg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim
Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
OK, fair enough.
But why would you expect a PHOTO app to import movies? The name certainly
doesn't imply that at all.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
>>
>> We were talking in the context of importing a movie from a digital
>> camera, right? so the problem, would be that iPhoto lacks the ability to
>> import the movie, from anywhere?
>>
> OK, fair enough.
>
> But why would you expect a PHOTO app to import movies? The name certainly
> doesn't imply that at all.
Why do you Maccies always crow about how "integrated" your system is? And
when you are shown that it is not, as in this case, it suddenly "makes no
sense" or "is not important" or other nonsense
--
It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
'Where am I allowed to go today?'
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/16/05 8:23 AM, in article d19ete$f4b$02$1...@news.t-online.com, "Peter
Köhlmann" <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin virus.scr Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>>>
>>> We were talking in the context of importing a movie from a digital
>>> camera, right? so the problem, would be that iPhoto lacks the ability to
>>> import the movie, from anywhere?
>>>
>> OK, fair enough.
>>
>> But why would you expect a PHOTO app to import movies? The name certainly
>> doesn't imply that at all.
>
> Why do you Maccies always crow about how "integrated" your system is? And
> when you are shown that it is not, as in this case, it suddenly "makes no
> sense" or "is not important" or other nonsense
Maybe because, in this case, a photo app that doesn't do movies doesn't
change a thing about integration.
The photo app is for, strangely enough, photos. While the movie app is for
movies.
I guess propeller heads want their spreadsheet to do movies next, huh Peter?
JEDIDIAH
> In article <42379fed$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
> wrote:
>
>> >> "Video" is nothing more than a rapidly captured sequence of photos.
>> >
>> > well, it has an extra component called Audio, which make it quite a bit
>> > different than a stream of pictures. Hard to service with a picture
>> > program.
>>
>> What happened to the "tight integration" of iLife?
>
> Why are you being such an idiot JEDIDIAH.
>
> iMovie is PERFECT for his movies, while iPhoto is PERFECT for his still
As I've said previously:
Given the relative crudity of current consumer digikam
tech. The video mode of many cameras is PERFECT for getting
the shot that you really want.
One wonders if you people have ever used a consumer grade digikam
before? The Linux users here seem to be the ones with all the multimedia
experience.
> images. There is TIGHT integration between two, but using the correct
> type of program for the data type is a smart first step.
TravelinMan
wrote:
> On 2005-03-16, Rgdawson <rg...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article <42379fed$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> >> "Video" is nothing more than a rapidly captured sequence of photos.
> >> >
> >> > well, it has an extra component called Audio, which make it quite a bit
> >> > different than a stream of pictures. Hard to service with a picture
> >> > program.
> >>
> >> What happened to the "tight integration" of iLife?
> >
> > Why are you being such an idiot JEDIDIAH.
> >
> > iMovie is PERFECT for his movies, while iPhoto is PERFECT for his still
>
> As I've said previously:
>
> Given the relative crudity of current consumer digikam
> tech. The video mode of many cameras is PERFECT for getting
> the shot that you really want.
>
> One wonders if you people have ever used a consumer grade digikam
> before? The Linux users here seem to be the ones with all the multimedia
> experience.
ROTFLMAO.
I use cameras all the time - both digital and film - and can't imagine
wanting to use video mode just to get a picture. First, it wastes
memory. Second, I'd rather choose the timing of the shot myself.
Granted, if you're using one of those junky POS cameras with a 3 second
delay between pushing the button and getting a picture, that might be
necessary. But I've never seen any need for it.
JEDIDIAH
> begin virus.scr TravelinMan wrote:
>
>> In article <d18p5a$6rq$00$2...@news.t-online.com>,
>> Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> begin virus.scr TravelinMan wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <42379fed$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 2005-03-15, Rgdawson <rg...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> >> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> So why do you think that a typical Mac-user would actually know
>>> something, for example the difference of data formats on a digital
>>> camera?
>>
>> Why should a Mac user care? We have apps that handle all that for us.
>
> Really? So a typical Mac-user, in his infinite stupidity, starts iPhoto to
> access his digicam, and then iPhote will magically know that it does not
> handle movies and hand the job over to iMovie? Automatically, *without* any
> user-intervention? Is *this* what you want to tell us?
Then can iMovie automagically feed still back into iPhoto once it
becomes apparent that what the end user is really interested in is extracting
stills from the digicam video?
Has it never OCCURED to mac users to capture stills from video?
People were doing this on other platforms decades ago.
JEDIDIAH
>>> Iphoto is just one way of accessing a camera. There are others, and you can
>>> make them the default if you like.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We were talking in the context of importing a movie from a digital
>> camera, right? so the problem, would be that iPhoto lacks the ability to
>> import the movie, from anywhere?
>>
> OK, fair enough.
>
> But why would you expect a PHOTO app to import movies? The name certainly
> doesn't imply that at all.
...because it's a feature that photo cameras support.
HELL, the average n00b might capture something as video without
realizing it. It appears that Apple would penalize him for that mistake.
Using a video application to deal with a still camera is counter
intuitive. Sure, the still camera is a hybrid. However, that's the hardware
environment that Apple finds itself in.
JEDIDIAH
It depends on the film actually.
JEDIDIAH
IOW, it's well within the bounds of how "the unwashed masses" use
digital cameras in practice. The fact that you might sneer at something less
than 5MP doesn't make the data any less meaningful to the relevant user.
This is simple Mac elitism.
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/16/05 8:54 AM, in article 42384896$1...@127.0.0.1, "JEDIDIAH"
<je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-03-16, Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/15/05 5:39 PM, in article
>> 6nKZd.11757$cN6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tim Smith"
>> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <BE5CA1C7.CB46%lloydp...@mac.com>, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>> Personally, I think a movie camera is for movies and a still camera is for
>>>> stills. I've not yet see one do the other that produced acceptable
>>>> results. But that is just me.
>>>
>>> My Sony DSC-P93 produces MPEG-1 movies at 640x480 30fps that are quite
>>> acceptable for things like putting on the web.
>>
>> In your opinion, of course. In mine, I haven't seen any that I would
>> consider acceptable. Kind of like the 'stills' that some digicams do.
>
> IOW, it's well within the bounds of how "the unwashed masses" use
> digital cameras in practice. The fact that you might sneer at something less
> than 5MP doesn't make the data any less meaningful to the relevant user.
>
> This is simple Mac elitism.
I guess the fact that I use a 2MP Nikon doesn't change that, huh? What a
maroon! ;-)
And frankly, I've found few that use that 'feature' on their still cameras.
When they see the results, it is usually one selection that doesn't get
selected again.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
>
> On 3/16/05 8:54 AM, in article 42384896$1...@127.0.0.1, "JEDIDIAH"
><je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-03-16, Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/15/05 5:39 PM, in article
>>> 6nKZd.11757$cN6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tim Smith"
>>> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <BE5CA1C7.CB46%lloydp...@mac.com>, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>> Personally, I think a movie camera is for movies and a still camera is for
>>>>> stills. I've not yet see one do the other that produced acceptable
>>>>> results. But that is just me.
>>>>
>>>> My Sony DSC-P93 produces MPEG-1 movies at 640x480 30fps that are quite
>>>> acceptable for things like putting on the web.
>>>
>>> In your opinion, of course. In mine, I haven't seen any that I would
>>> consider acceptable. Kind of like the 'stills' that some digicams do.
>>
>> IOW, it's well within the bounds of how "the unwashed masses" use
>> digital cameras in practice. The fact that you might sneer at something less
>> than 5MP doesn't make the data any less meaningful to the relevant user.
>>
>> This is simple Mac elitism.
>
> I guess the fact that I use a 2MP Nikon doesn't change that, huh? What a
> maroon! ;-)
Your comment doesn't contradict anything I've said.
>
> And frankly, I've found few that use that 'feature' on their still cameras.
> When they see the results, it is usually one selection that doesn't get
> selected again.
>
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:08:07 -0600,
It would be a nice feature yes?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCOE8qd90bcYOAWPYRAv1QAJ4wbKSg8zAIfSlMoBvkrzehqnFPlwCePb0h
wBD0bczE6Kbtr+Uez5WLnf8=
=VIiu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you can tell the difference between good advice and bad advice,
you probably don't need advice.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
If you mount the camera, and click on the movie, will iVideo or
whatever, grab the movie and import it?
> I guess propeller heads want their spreadsheet to do movies next, huh Peter?
>
Do you view gratuitous insults as a valid debating technique? I ask only
for future reference.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCOE/pd90bcYOAWPYRAka4AJ0fV0irZWrtd0KrntqbjzDqX0rQkwCfdCDV
sEq1DQ2skJ1H3fqYp5jLad4=
=ztJT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Homo sapiens, isn't
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
So the Mac is fine for pro video work, but anyone who just wants to grab
some vid from their camera of their kids birthday, or whatever, is
better advised to use something else?
Hey, Apple can have a new slogan! inspired by Joe Ragosta.
"Apple, expensive, and not for the proles, and don't you forget it!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCOFEod90bcYOAWPYRArvMAKDKiAyU4CsDcHZ2mWa93QJAqw9tAgCgkN5n
o8WLfMg7a/SOE5WZVkjUr60=
=ReAy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.
TravelinMan
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
No, you simply use the right tool.
Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you Linux loonies:
Use iPhoto for photos, use iMovie for movies.
Nah, even THAT isn't simple enough for the LInux loonies in this group.
>
> Hey, Apple can have a new slogan! inspired by Joe Ragosta.
>
> "Apple, expensive, and not for the proles, and don't you forget it!"
IOW, you're incapable of understanding something as simple as using the
right tool for the job, so you blame the computer.
buzz off
wrote:
JEDIDIAH, I am surprised to find that you are such a fan of the do
everything jumbo application.
>
> HELL, the average n00b might capture something as video without
> realizing it. It appears that Apple would penalize him for that mistake.
My seven-year old son used to capture video this way, but then he got
he is own video camera. He never once made that mistake.
Since the Macintosh is capable of importing video with a variety of
applications, just how is Apple penalizing them for that mistake?
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/16/05 9:22 AM, in article aivlg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim Richardson"
<war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
I wouldn't argue with that. And it seems that it does on some cameras,
according to the Apple site.
Peter Köhlmann
You know, it is about "integration". Or what idiots like TravelinCretin
think it is. You know, that way of integration where the user has to know
the data formats and what app(s) to start to work with it.
The apple way of integration: bundle some 3rd-rate software, label them all
some "iXX" and name the whole suite "iLife". Voila! Instant integration
--
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' -
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/16/05 9:25 AM, in article 9ovlg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim Richardson"
<war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:21:46 -0600,
> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/16/05 8:23 AM, in article d19ete$f4b$02$1...@news.t-online.com, "Peter
>> Köhlmann" <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> begin virus.scr Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We were talking in the context of importing a movie from a digital
>>>>> camera, right? so the problem, would be that iPhoto lacks the ability to
>>>>> import the movie, from anywhere?
>>>>>
>>>> OK, fair enough.
>>>>
>>>> But why would you expect a PHOTO app to import movies? The name certainly
>>>> doesn't imply that at all.
>>>
>>> Why do you Maccies always crow about how "integrated" your system is? And
>>> when you are shown that it is not, as in this case, it suddenly "makes no
>>> sense" or "is not important" or other nonsense
>>
>> Maybe because, in this case, a photo app that doesn't do movies doesn't
>> change a thing about integration.
>>
>> The photo app is for, strangely enough, photos. While the movie app is for
>> movies.
>>
>
> If you mount the camera, and click on the movie, will iVideo or
> whatever, grab the movie and import it?
>
I don't know as I don't use that feature on my still camera. Others may and
will probably respond.
>> I guess propeller heads want their spreadsheet to do movies next, huh Peter?
>>
>
>
> Do you view gratuitous insults as a valid debating technique? I ask only
> for future reference.
>
Read a few more of Peter's postings and you will understand why I
occasionally throw one in. Peter's postings almost all contain snide
remarks and gratuitous insults. I guess it rubbed off a bit! <G>
Tim Smith
TravelinMan <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
> Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you Linux loonies:
>
> Use iPhoto for photos, use iMovie for movies.
But iPhoto does import movies from the disk when you tell it to add a
folder to your library.
Also, the "import from camera" mode in iMovie does not work over USB,
according to the documentation (I haven't actually tried it to see if
the documentation is right).
Finally, iMovie is for *editing* a single movie. iPhoto is for
organizing a collection of images. Since people who are using their
still cameras in movie mode are likely to have lots of small movies, an
organizational tool is probably what they are looking for (in addition
to an edition tool). Hence, iPhoto is the logical tool to use.
...
> IOW, you're incapable of understanding something as simple as using the
> right tool for the job, so you blame the computer.
No, you are the one failing to understand what is the right tool.
iMovie is the right tool for *editing* movies. iPhoto is the tool for
organizing a collection of movies. Note that Apple recognizes this:
"Thats not all. In addition to supporting RAW photos, iPhoto 5 also
lets you import and organize MPEG-4 video clips, as well. You import
them right alongside your photos. In fact, you can keep the clips in
the same roll as the photos and use them in slideshows. You dont
even have to leave iPhoto to see them, either. Just doubleclick to
watch them. And if you want to use them in iMovie HD or iDVD, you
can just drag them into those other apps or import them via the
iLife media browser"
http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/
The failure to import the OP's movie is either a bug or a limitation in
format support on the part of Apple, rather than a misuse of a tool by
the user.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
> But why would you expect a PHOTO app to import movies? The name certainly
> doesn't imply that at all.
People...we are not in Japan! Names do not have to describe every
freaking feature of the product! Do we really want Apple to name the
thing "Super Photo Organize Red Eye Remove Printer Album Purchase Tool"?
:-)
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
If you are saying that 640x480 is never acceptable, then I can see that.
However, for situations where you want a 640x480 MPEG movie, I don't see
anything wrong with those produced by still camera in movie mode. (Or
320x240, which it will also do). Can you point out what is inadequate
about these movies?
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
TravelinMan <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
> Except it's not a problem. The app is acting as it's designed.
>
> Here, let me spell it out again:
>
> iPhoto is for photos
>
> iMovie is for movies
>
> If you want to import a movie, you use iMovie.
Apple disagrees with you. Go read the feature list for iPhoto 5.
--
--Tim Smith
buzz off
wrote:
> On 2005-03-16, Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
I could not understand why you found such a trivial function so
important, but now I think I do.
My son used in the program that was provided by the company that made
our digital camera. But they only provided programs for Windows and the
Macintosh, not linux. So sad.
JEDIDIAH
With an Atari ST level of integration, the appearance of such a
thing would not actually require such a thing.
>
>>
>> HELL, the average n00b might capture something as video without
>> realizing it. It appears that Apple would penalize him for that mistake.
>
> My seven-year old son used to capture video this way, but then he got
> he is own video camera. He never once made that mistake.
>
> Since the Macintosh is capable of importing video with a variety of
> applications, just how is Apple penalizing them for that mistake?
It is simply counterintuitive to force use use of something other than
a photo application to acquire data from a photo camera.
[deletia]
JEDIDIAH
>> > doesn't imply that at all.
>>
>> ...because it's a feature that photo cameras support.
>>
>> HELL, the average n00b might capture something as video without
>> realizing it. It appears that Apple would penalize him for that mistake.
>>
>> Using a video application to deal with a still camera is counter
>> intuitive. Sure, the still camera is a hybrid. However, that's the hardware
>> environment that Apple finds itself in.
>
> I could not understand why you found such a trivial function so
> important, but now I think I do.
>
> My son used in the program that was provided by the company that made
> our digital camera. But they only provided programs for Windows and the
> Macintosh, not linux. So sad.
What happens when he decides to get another camera? Does he have
to relearn another app? Basd on the way some of you whine, that could be
a considerable tragedy.
Those functions are built into Linux. It's just another, fairly
abstract source of data. No special purpose applications are required. But
the desktop will happily run the appropriate ones for you.
I would expect the Mac to act in a similar fashion. Although it
doesn't seem to be the case. OTOH, the Mac commentators could all be
completely lacking in relevant experience.
That seems to be the general pattern with iLife.
buzz off
wrote:
He all ready has. He now has a video camera. He uses imovie.
> Does he have
> to relearn another app? Basd on the way some of you whine, that could be
> a considerable tragedy.
>
> Those functions are built into Linux.
Which functions are you referring to that are built-in to Linux?
> It's just another, fairly abstract source of data. No special purpose applications are required.
Your operating system provides an image catalog? I wasn't aware of that.
MR ED
First, let's ignore the merits of using a digital still camera for video
clips. The feature is there in many cameras, and being used by many people.
Secondly, let's ignore the merits of using iPhoto as an organizer for video
clips...again, the feature is now there as a part of iPhoto.
The issue is that iPhoto does not import video clips from all digital still
cameras. I have yet to find one that does work automatically, but my
understanding is that some cameras do work.
The problem is that since iPhoto 5 does import video clips and offers to
organize them, some people will assume that when they connect their camera
and do the import, the video clips will also be automatically imported along
with the stills.
When iPhoto 5 does not automatically import the video along with the stills,
the user isn't alerted and may end up deleting the video clips without
having transferred them.
Can anyone point to an iPhoto-like app (Mac or Windows) that automatically
imports stills and video clips from pretty much any camera?
I'm doing consulting work for a company that is working on this, and my
understanding is that it's extremely difficult to import the video
automatically the same way as stills because of the variety of codecs, file
formats and file naming/organizing by the cameras. This is more of an issue
with older cameras.
Of course the work around for this is to mount the camera on the desktop and
manually import the video clips...which is what I happen to do as my routine
for all files.
JEDIDIAH
Then he doesn't use a vendor supplied tool.
>
>> Does he have
>> to relearn another app? Basd on the way some of you whine, that could be
>> a considerable tragedy.
>>
>> Those functions are built into Linux.
>
> Which functions are you referring to that are built-in to Linux?
Image acquisition & manipulation.
Video acquisition & manipulation.
Generic data aquisition, browsing and handling.
I can browse a camera like any other data and let the shell
determine what to do with files based on naming conventions or actual
content.
>
>> It's just another, fairly abstract source of data. No special purpose applications are required.
>
> Your operating system provides an image catalog? I wasn't aware of that.
That's not surprising.
>
>> But
>> the desktop will happily run the appropriate ones for you.
>>
>> I would expect the Mac to act in a similar fashion. Although it
>> doesn't seem to be the case. OTOH, the Mac commentators could all be
>> completely lacking in relevant experience.
>>
>> That seems to be the general pattern with iLife.
The whole point of multimedia is the fact that one's and zero's are
ultimately generic.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:32:28 GMT,
I don't use the mac, so that "advice" isn't worth much, but thanks for
the thought. If you call it that.
btw, do you think that gratuitous insults will somehow endear folks to
the mac? or that it will encourage lurkers to give your words any real
credence?
> Nah, even THAT isn't simple enough for the LInux loonies in this group.
>
>>
>> Hey, Apple can have a new slogan! inspired by Joe Ragosta.
>>
>> "Apple, expensive, and not for the proles, and don't you forget it!"
>
> IOW, you're incapable of understanding something as simple as using the
> right tool for the job, so you blame the computer.
nah, I just click the file in the filebrowser, and work with it, using
whatever tools I chose. Why is that hard for you to understand?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCOIzSd90bcYOAWPYRAlqXAKCATTvx6A0NFeab+ToQCM7HzyiYsQCfdZmQ
A4BFHyoOqfMjzVLD9te8FX0=
=fccH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Nine out of ten of the voices in my head say "Don't shoot!"
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:27:53 -0500,
buzz off <nom...@inv.inv> wrote:
> I could not understand why you found such a trivial function so
> important, but now I think I do.
>
> My son used in the program that was provided by the company that made
> our digital camera. But they only provided programs for Windows and the
> Macintosh, not linux. So sad.
Why would I need a special app to import movies? the system handles that
for me. Plug in the camera, navigate to the movie file, (with preview if
wanted) and drag it to the folder I wish to store it in. Or drop it on
Kino. Whatever.
You mean you have to use some app, thrown together by sony or whomever?
what if you change camears? or buy an additional one? do you have to
learn a new app? Sounds pretty 1980's to me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCOI6qd90bcYOAWPYRAsURAJ9navueJAyX8v07AzUC7eRqKyx+AQCdFZlo
U+3JQfIf7cXkHmkscS5FOas=
=va5G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge." - Anon.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:10:55 -0600,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/16/05 9:25 AM, in article 9ovlg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim Richardson"
><war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>> If you mount the camera, and click on the movie, will iVideo or
>> whatever, grab the movie and import it?
>>
> I don't know as I don't use that feature on my still camera. Others may and
> will probably respond.
>
my digicam, is both a video, and still camera. Sure, it's pretty crappy
video, it's a few years old, but it's good enough for some things, and I
am glad that nautilus will happily see it, and direct the right app to
the right file.
>>> I guess propeller heads want their spreadsheet to do movies next,
>>> huh Peter?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you view gratuitous insults as a valid debating technique? I ask
>> only for future reference.
>>
> Read a few more of Peter's postings and you will understand why I
> occasionally throw one in. Peter's postings almost all contain snide
> remarks and gratuitous insults. I guess it rubbed off a bit! <G>
>
Ah, so you view it as ok, as long as someone else is doing it?
Does that reflect back at you ? Can others insult you as well, since you
use insults? or will you get all upset at that?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCOIw4d90bcYOAWPYRAhmBAKDbz+XY26DYyZQCF41x5dkmYlzSkQCeIH4a
3WgHtN4sP3bfe9MFJmbG6zg=
=TcL0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I worry about dying before I get even.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:36:46 -0500,
buzz off <nom...@inv.inv> wrote:
> In article <42387685$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-03-16, buzz off <nom...@inv.inv> wrote:
<snip>
> >
>> > I could not understand why you found such a trivial function so
>> > important, but now I think I do.
>> >
>> > My son used in the program that was provided by the company that made
>> > our digital camera. But they only provided programs for Windows and the
>> > Macintosh, not linux. So sad.
>>
>> What happens when he decides to get another camera?
>
> He all ready has. He now has a video camera. He uses imovie.
>
>> Does he have
>> to relearn another app? Basd on the way some of you whine, that could be
>> a considerable tragedy.
>>
>> Those functions are built into Linux.
>
> Which functions are you referring to that are built-in to Linux?
>
mount the camera as a filesystem, drag the movies/photos to wherever,
drop them there. Doesn't the Mac do that?
>> It's just another, fairly abstract source of data. No special purpose applications are required.
>
> Your operating system provides an image catalog? I wasn't aware of that.
>
Yes, or rather, the distro does. I doubt that tomsrtbt does, but GNOME
based distros do, as do the KDE ones. Gthumb comes default with GNOME
now, there are other apps, pornview is quite good, despite the somewhat
evocative name :) All part of the distro.
>> But
>> the desktop will happily run the appropriate ones for you.
>>
>> I would expect the Mac to act in a similar fashion. Although it
>> doesn't seem to be the case. OTOH, the Mac commentators could all be
>> completely lacking in relevant experience.
>>
>> That seems to be the general pattern with iLife.
According to Tim Smith, iPhoto will import some movie formats, but only
a limited set, so it's mostly a feature lack in iPhoto.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCOJDad90bcYOAWPYRAjIjAKCospUSr5lcha8e+SxNTvczkyvm2wCgqNv2
OXe5Fzq5MH8UNXGlIYhWt6s=
=QYCW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"We have captured lightning and used it to teach sand how to think."
TravelinMan
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:36:46 -0500,
> buzz off <nom...@inv.inv> wrote:
> > In article <42387685$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-03-16, buzz off <nom...@inv.inv> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> >> > I could not understand why you found such a trivial function so
> >> > important, but now I think I do.
> >> >
> >> > My son used in the program that was provided by the company that made
> >> > our digital camera. But they only provided programs for Windows and the
> >> > Macintosh, not linux. So sad.
> >>
> >> What happens when he decides to get another camera?
> >
> > He all ready has. He now has a video camera. He uses imovie.
> >
> >> Does he have
> >> to relearn another app? Basd on the way some of you whine, that could be
> >> a considerable tragedy.
> >>
> >> Those functions are built into Linux.
> >
> > Which functions are you referring to that are built-in to Linux?
> >
>
> mount the camera as a filesystem, drag the movies/photos to wherever,
> drop them there. Doesn't the Mac do that?
Of course. So what are you complaining about?
TravelinMan
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:32:28 GMT,
> TravelinMan <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > In article <820mg2-...@grendel.myth>,
> > Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nah, even THAT isn't simple enough for the LInux loonies in this group.
> >
> >>
> >> Hey, Apple can have a new slogan! inspired by Joe Ragosta.
> >>
> >> "Apple, expensive, and not for the proles, and don't you forget it!"
> >
> > IOW, you're incapable of understanding something as simple as using the
> > right tool for the job, so you blame the computer.
>
> nah, I just click the file in the filebrowser, and work with it, using
> whatever tools I chose. Why is that hard for you to understand?
\
So the problem is that you simply don't understand how the Mac works.
The Mac will do that, too. If you want to take the extra steps to mount
the camera on the desktop, copy the files over, select the files you
want, choose the tool you want, and open the files, it works just fine.
The difference is that Mac users prefer a simpler, more automated method
- which Linux doesn't offer.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/16/05 1:42 PM, in article oqemg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim Richardson"
<war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
LOL!
I don't let much on usenet get me upset. And BTW, my original reply was
directed at Peter.
Lloyd Parsons
On 3/16/05 2:02 PM, in article qvfmg2-...@grendel.myth, "Jim Richardson"
<war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:36:46 -0500,
> buzz off <nom...@inv.inv> wrote:
>> In article <42387685$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-03-16, buzz off <nom...@inv.inv> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>>> I could not understand why you found such a trivial function so
>>>> important, but now I think I do.
>>>>
>>>> My son used in the program that was provided by the company that made
>>>> our digital camera. But they only provided programs for Windows and the
>>>> Macintosh, not linux. So sad.
>>>
>>> What happens when he decides to get another camera?
>>
>> He all ready has. He now has a video camera. He uses imovie.
>>
>>> Does he have
>>> to relearn another app? Basd on the way some of you whine, that could be
>>> a considerable tragedy.
>>>
>>> Those functions are built into Linux.
>>
>> Which functions are you referring to that are built-in to Linux?
>>
>
> mount the camera as a filesystem, drag the movies/photos to wherever,
> drop them there. Doesn't the Mac do that?
>
The default is not that, but the first time you mount a camera, choices are
given. Most select iPhoto, but there are other ways of mounting that are
made available.
>
>>> It's just another, fairly abstract source of data. No special purpose
>>> applications are required.
>>
>> Your operating system provides an image catalog? I wasn't aware of that.
>>
>
>
> Yes, or rather, the distro does. I doubt that tomsrtbt does, but GNOME
> based distros do, as do the KDE ones. Gthumb comes default with GNOME
> now, there are other apps, pornview is quite good, despite the somewhat
> evocative name :) All part of the distro.
>
I like that name! <G>
>>> But
>>> the desktop will happily run the appropriate ones for you.
>>>
>>> I would expect the Mac to act in a similar fashion. Although it
>>> doesn't seem to be the case. OTOH, the Mac commentators could all be
>>> completely lacking in relevant experience.
>>>
>>> That seems to be the general pattern with iLife.
>
> According to Tim Smith, iPhoto will import some movie formats, but only
> a limited set, so it's mostly a feature lack in iPhoto.
>
There was another post in this thread talking about the mish-mash of formats
the camera makers seem to be using and the problems it presents.
IF I were to want to use the video on my still camera, I think I would just
mount the camera as a drive and go from there. I really wouldn't expect
iPhoto to handle it at all.
buzz off
<je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
Yes?
>
> >
> >> Does he have
> >> to relearn another app? Basd on the way some of you whine, that could be
> >> a considerable tragedy.
> >>
> >> Those functions are built into Linux.
> >
> > Which functions are you referring to that are built-in to Linux?
>
> Image acquisition & manipulation.
Your operating system has built in image editing?
> Video acquisition & manipulation.
Your operating system has built in Video editing?
> Generic data aquisition, browsing and handling.
>
> I can browse a camera like any other data and let the shell
> determine what to do with files based on naming conventions or actual
> content.
>
> >
> >> It's just another, fairly abstract source of data. No special purpose
> >> applications are required.
> >
> > Your operating system provides an image catalog? I wasn't aware of that.
What is the name of the image catalog?
>
> That's not surprising.
I have never used your operating system because it doesn't have the
features that I require to be able to use it.
buzz off
<war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:36:46 -0500,
> buzz off <nom...@inv.inv> wrote:
> > In article <42387685$1...@127.0.0.1>, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-03-16, buzz off <nom...@inv.inv> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> >> > I could not understand why you found such a trivial function so
> >> > important, but now I think I do.
> >> >
> >> > My son used in the program that was provided by the company that made
> >> > our digital camera. But they only provided programs for Windows and the
> >> > Macintosh, not linux. So sad.
> >>
> >> What happens when he decides to get another camera?
> >
> > He all ready has. He now has a video camera. He uses imovie.
> >
> >> Does he have
> >> to relearn another app? Basd on the way some of you whine, that could be
> >> a considerable tragedy.
> >>
> >> Those functions are built into Linux.
> >
> > Which functions are you referring to that are built-in to Linux?
> >
>
> mount the camera as a filesystem, drag the movies/photos to wherever,
> drop them there. Doesn't the Mac do that?
Why bother? The image catalogue will import images quite easily.
The video application offers even more convenience. It allows the user
complete control of the camera.
>
>
> >> It's just another, fairly abstract source of data. No special purpose
> >> applications are required.
> >
> > Your operating system provides an image catalog? I wasn't aware of that.
> >
>
>
> Yes, or rather, the distro does. I doubt that tomsrtbt does, but GNOME
> based distros do, as do the KDE ones. Gthumb comes default with GNOME
> now, there are other apps, pornview is quite good, despite the somewhat
> evocative name :) All part of the distro.
But aren't those special purpose applications?
JEDIDIAH
>> >> to relearn another app? Basd on the way some of you whine, that could be
>> >> a considerable tragedy.
>> >>
>> >> Those functions are built into Linux.
>> >
>> > Which functions are you referring to that are built-in to Linux?
>>
>> Image acquisition & manipulation.
>
> Your operating system has built in image editing?
Slackware came standard with such tools waaay back in 1994.
They're about as "built in" as anything else beyond libc and libm.
>
>> Video acquisition & manipulation.
>
> Your operating system has built in Video editing?
Suse comes with an entire DVD of goodies.
>> Generic data aquisition, browsing and handling.
>>
>> I can browse a camera like any other data and let the shell
>> determine what to do with files based on naming conventions or actual
>> content.
>>
>> >
>> >> It's just another, fairly abstract source of data. No special purpose
>> >> applications are required.
>> >
>> > Your operating system provides an image catalog? I wasn't aware of that.
>
> What is the name of the image catalog?
>>
>> That's not surprising.
>
> I have never used your operating system because it doesn't have the
> features that I require to be able to use it.
How do you know if you've never used it?
The usual name for that is predjudice.
[deletia]
MarkW
>
> Can anyone point to an iPhoto-like app (Mac or Windows) that automatically
> imports stills and video clips from pretty much any camera?
>
I use FotoAlbum from fototime.com on Windows. It handles video clips
from my Canon and Sony digital cameras as well as video produced by
MovieMaker or Pinnacle (wmv, divx). It plays those clips as part of the
slideshow or will pop up the default video player. Not surprisingly, it
seems to rely on the codecs on the system--which is fine because if you
own the camera and have installed the software for it, the videos will
just work.
TravelinMan
buzz off <nom...@inv.inv> wrote:
That's the whole point. Linux doesn't offer anything comparable to
iPhoto (or even iMovie, for that matter), so the Linux Loonies set up
all sorts of strawman arguments. They argue that the Mac is deficient
because it doesn't let them do things their way (the clumsy, manual way)
- because they don't know enough about the Mac to know that it DOES
allow you to do it the clumsy, manual way if you wish. Then they
criticize the Mac's integrated apps because THEY don't let you do it the
clumsy, manual way.
buzz off
<je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
> >> That's not surprising.
> >
> > I have never used your operating system because it doesn't have the
> > features that I require to be able to use it.
>
> How do you know if you've never used it?
>
> The usual name for that is predjudice.
No, it is not prejudice.
I require speech command, control, and dictation. That is not available
on your operating system.
Peter Köhlmann
And again, you are dead wrong, as usual
I actually *can* set up a KDE app to open each time a plug the camera in
It is just not as conveniant as simply clicking on a photo file or a movie
directly visible from the file system
Thanks for again clarifying that you, despite your protestations to the
contrary, actally know nothing at all about linux. Not the tiniest little
bit. Otherwise you would not have to each that much crow each time you
claim something about linux
--
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of
old ones.
TravelinMan
Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
But that is STILL not the level of integration that iPhoto, for example,
offers.
Since you have never used OS X, you don't know that, but you really
ought to stop making yourself look foolish by proving your ignorance.
Peter Köhlmann
Well, how do you know that? You haven't known until just now that it exists,
and now you talk again your usual "integration" garbage and how iPhoto is
so much better than that app you don't know, not even its name?
Do you realize how utterly stupid you sound, you dimwit?
> Since you have never used OS X, you don't know that, but you really
> ought to stop making yourself look foolish by proving your ignorance.
Coming from you that is just hilarious. You don't know anything at all about
linux and the available apps, but you know for certain that OSX is better
And you may naturally tell people that they are ignorant about OSX and
therefor anything they write is worthless.
Yet you yourself may be totally clueless about linux, yet your claims
naturally are the gospel
Yeah right.
Idiot
--
Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
buzz off
TravelinMan <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
But, JEDIDIAH said:
>
> >> >> Those functions are built into Linux.
> >> >
> >> > Which functions are you referring to that are built-in to Linux?
> >>
> >> Image acquisition & manipulation.
> >
> > Your operating system has built in image editing?
>
> Slackware came standard with such tools waaay back in 1994.
>
> They're about as "built in" as anything else beyond libc and libm.
>
> >
So not just does it have them, it has had them since 1994 and they're
built-in to the operating system.