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............
Unknown
Each few weeks, or monthly, I unload a friends camera of snaps and
vids taken of her now 2.25 year old grandchild. Neither of her
stand-alone players will play the AVIs created by XP, Vista, nor
Windows 7 from her USB interfacing camera. So I copy the .AVI files
from the capture folder, which is simply named for the yyyy-mo in
which she took the pictures, and make an ever growing DVD (using a
convertX project) with a per-episode "motion wall menu." I also copy
the .JPGs and write that folder to a multi-track DVD. Last, I extract
and snaps/vids which are not about the child from the capture folder
to a MISC folder.
On her PC she can play the .AVIs (which are 15 fps motion JPEGs) and
.JPGs intermixed using VLC media player. She retains the "shoot"
order because of the default incremental numeric file names created by
the OS's included capture software. On her DVD players she can play
the videos as a DVD or the stills as a slide show, but they are on
separate discs because of her hardware limitations.
Thus the chapters of the DVD and the folders of the snap shots depict
the ascending days and months of the child's life. As do the merged
files in the folders on her PC.
Twice so far she's given me a list of folder\file numbered names to
remove from future optical disc creations before she distributes to
family and friends.
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
rmo...@cox.net
My wife takes the pictures of our two grandsons and I'm supposed to do
the rest. Sounds like you're way ahead of me. I've never worked with
AVIs before and I haven't done much burning - although I have the
capability. I also have Nero 9. I don't know how to put this - but my
biggest hurdle right now is how to sort the AVIs by date taken and,
although you explained what you do, by the time I get the capture card,
the shoot order is not in order anymore. You see, other people add
their own files to our capture folder. Trust me - I need to find a way
to put the AVIs in shoot order (Date Taken) preferably in the same
folder as the JPGs (but separate folders can work too) and I can't
figure it out. Also, I don't know what you mean by "motion wall menu."
What is a multi-track DVD?....and what is VLC Media Player? Thanks so
much for your help.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:21:38 -0800, "CLi...@invalid.org" <CLicker>
wrote:
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.
Unknown
ConvertX <http://www.vso-software.fr/products/convert_x_to_dvd/>
beside "converting" many different encodings to DVD, offers some
automated menu options. The motion wall is a thumbnail of the chapter
which plays as a short video. I forget, at the moment, but it
defaults to something like 20 or 24 thumbnails per menu page. At
present, the DVD I make for my friend is on the fourth page of menus.
A multitrack (or multi session) CD or DVD is one to which you can add
tracks. For write-once disks, this is an obvious advantage. Nero
provides this option among the steps in burning data disks.
VLC media player <http://www.videolan.org/vlc/> is a free, open
source, player program for PCs. It is quite accomplished in the
number of encoding types it can handle as well as the feature set
provided for user control of its presentation.
When I connect the camera's USB cable to my PC, the OS (now Windows 7,
but the same in Vista and XP) pops up a window that provides me with
the options to locate or create a folder for the capture, and select a
naming convention for the files (the default naming being sequential
numbers). Using the default, it is always obvious in what order the
pictures in the folder were taken. As mentioned, I merely name the
folder with the year and month representing the shoot dates. Finally,
all these folders sit in a folder titled "BABY" which is in a folder
bearing my friend's name.
I have no occasion to want to sort the contents of the folder(s) as
there is no other data mixed in and the original sequence is never
disturbed. Also, the sequentially numeric file names assigned at
capture time obviate the necessity of another sequencing method.
In your case, it sounds as if you've allowed other data to infiltrate
the folder. So, I'd suggest first sorting by file extension - thus at
least grouping .JPGs and .AVIs. Copy these to a new folder and then
try your sort by date (sadly, MS continues to outsource their
programming task to third world programming neophytes who have no
inherent understanding of a loosely specified task, so any folders
will bear a creation date of the day you copy, rather than a COPY of
the date created. Files, however, will retain their creation dates &
times).
In the future, create your specific capture folder as part of, or
before, the capture process to avoid such issues.
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.