What is the difference between these three cameras ?

Q. http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2222photo.jpg?w=611&h=458

The one on the right, middle and the one on the left ? Can they all take pictures like this :

http://500px.com/photo/4376010
http://500px.com/photo/1727142
http://500px.com/photo/23814435
http://500px.com/photo/34359580

What is the difference between these three cameras ? Thanks.

A. They are all digital SLR's. The one on the right looks like a medium format, possibly a Pentax 645; the others are the more widely used FX or DX format.

Yes, they can all be used to take pictures like your examples. Do NOT make the assumption that the ownership of any of these cameras will in itself enable the neophyte to immediately go out and take photographs of this standard. This would be a very expensive mistake. I say this because of your wording in the question:
'Can they all take pictures like this'
Rather as if it's the camera that takes the photograph. As you can see, cameras need the assistance of a knowledgeable and experienced photographer to take good photographs. That's why the humans are there, accompanying the cameras.

Original Question

What type of Film did video cameras for Hollywood use in the 1970's to make Hollywood movies?

Q. I know that people who made home movies in the 70's used 35mm, 16mm, 8mm any others if you know???

I assume it would have been different and or better than the type of film used for home movie films of the same time???

Can you name the calibers and sizes of professional hollywood movie Video Camera film???

I can find out a lot about home movie making back then but not about what movie studios of hollywood used that is why i am asking.

Also about today's recording media it is probably since we are in the digital age. Are hollywood movie Cameras recording Digitally to a Hard Drive or something like that nowadays???

I figure any type of video tape for recording a hollywood movie has not been used in years because we are in the digital age. So any videos Cameras hollywood uses today is saving to a Hard Drive Digitally is what i figure anyway.

I always wondered to are Video Cameras going back to the 70's to Present Day 2013 what types of power sources did they use like Car Batteries,Power Cords plugged to wall outlets or some other type of battery???

I say Car Batteries and power cords plugged to wall outlets because i figure it would take something pretty heavy duty to run a Video Camera for a Movie and not some lithium ion rechargeable proprietary battery like home video cameras use today in the present day.


I ask these questions because i have always had an interest in Video and Still Cameras. Both of the Consumer Home Category and the Big Leauges where Movies of Hollywood for the Big Screen are made.

I Really do appreciate your helpful answers community.

A. Hollywood movies since the era of "talkies" have been shot on either 1 inch or 2 inch wide film strips. Known in the trade as "35mm" and "65mm". Silent movies and home movies from the 20s used 16mm or 1/2 inch wide film. then Kodak came out with its 8mm format for home movie use. 8mm is the same identical film as 16mm double perf but only exposed for half the width. the reel is flipped at the end and then the other side is exposed. 8mm is also 16 fps instead of 24 fps used for theatrical movies. thus it consumed a lot less film making it affordable for home use. after exposure, the double shot camera reel was developed, split down the center and spliced together to make a single 3.5 minute reel of 1/4 inch wide film with sprocket holes on one side only. The reels for 8mm film are the same as for 1/4 inch audio tape except they have a feature that prevents them from being mounted backwards on the projector.

when videotape came out with portable cameras for consumer use that pretty much ended the 8mm movie era. Kodak and other camera makers came out with Super8 which was a cartridge film system to try and compete. Compared to 8mm it offered improvements, like sound, higher frame rate (18 fps) slightly larger image size, battery power, and ease of handling, but the public preferred VHS that could be viewed on the TV set instead of requiring a projector and screen.

the majority of Hollywood movies are still shot on 65mm film. the film is often converted to 4k video for the purpose of editing and special effects creation and then regenerated back to film for theatrical use. it has only been very recently that CCD technology has improved to allow 4k video to be imaged directly by a digital camera, so that is the future of movie making as it matches the 4k video editing that has been done in Hollywood since the 1980s.. HDTV is 1k video for comparison.

there is a huge gap in quality between equipment made for the motion picture industry and home use. that is mostly because the big screen requires far more resolution than a TV set.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Can my computer run DayZ at ____ specs?

Q. What specs do you think this computer can run DayZ at? Low? Normal? High? Very High?
Also, how good is the sound going to be.
Valkyrie CZ-17 Gaming Laptop
1 x Case ( Valkyrie CZ-17 17.3" Full HD 1920x1080 LED-Backlit Display Laptop w/HDMI Port, E-SATA, USB 3.0, Illuminated Keyboard, Li-Ion Battery, Universal AC Power Adapter - Original Metallic black )
1 x Processor ( Intel® Core� i7-3630QM Mobile Processor (4x 2.4GHz/6MB L3 Cache) )
1 x Memory ( 8GB [8GB x 1] 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM [Laptop Memory] - G.SKILL )
1 x Video Card ( NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX 4GB GDDR5 Video w/ NVIDIA Optimus [CZ-17] )
1 x Primary Hard Drive ( 750 GB 7200rpm Serial-ATA Super Slim Laptop Hard Drive )
0 x Data Hard Drive ( None )
1 x Optical Drive ( 6X Blu-Ray-R/8x Dual Format DVD±R/±RW + 24x CD-R/RW Combo Drive [CZ-17] )
1 x Flash Media Reader / Writer ( Built-in 4-in-1 Media Card Reader/Writer [Laptop] )
1 x Sound Card ( HD Audio with THX TrueStudio Pro )
1 x Network Card ( Killer E2200 Gaming Networking )
1 x Internal Wireless Network Adapter ( Intel Ultimate-N 6300 802.11 a/b/g/n 450Mbps Dual-Band Wi-Fi )
1 x Operating System ( Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium + Office Starter 2010 (Includes basic versions of Word and Excel) - 64-Bit )
1 x Additional Software ( Microsoft Office 2013 Home and Student - Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote included )
1 x USB Ports ( Built-in 2x USB 2.0 Ports + 3x USB 3.0 Port [Laptop] )
0 x Carrying Case ( None )
1 x Video Camera ( Built-in 3.0 Mega Pixels Digital Web Video Camera )

A. On max.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

5,000 files in one folder Keeps freezing Windows?

Q. I have taken photos over a period of 6 years.. and ive put them all in one folder..

I have 1.12 GB (1,206,584,242 bytes) of total data in one folder with four sub folders but it has over 90% of the pictures in the root folder of E:\photos\Digital Camera\ <--- theres at least 5,000 files there.

Now when I go into the folder to view files... explorer.exe takes 99% of system resource and never loads anymore... I want to be able to save my files. .but I Dont know what to do.. am I going to have to Delete the folder permanently and loose everything? I have tried folder options with "Do not cache thumbnails" Both on and off.. and nither works.. I have even disabled "Auto search NEtwork Drives and folders"

This is Windows XP SP3 Professional.


Please any help would be appreciated,
Thanks in advance.
im sorry when I said "I have even disabled "Auto Search networks and folders" I meant to actually say - "Automatically search for network folders and printers. " I heard disabling that helps with search times in the folders of explorer.exe to speed things up..
Thanks guys all your feedback was very helpful, Special thanks to TJ and , Ramblin' Man, Also Ramblin' Man I did have one video that was being thumbnailed and it was a corrupted file too. I deleted it. Ive already started archving and the indexing speeds is increasing very well. Thnx to all ur help.

A. In XP (either FAT32 or NTFS formats for where your pictures are stored) there's an inherent catch that affects most all operating systems - I'll try to explain...

Imagine if you will your photos were in a book (ie: scrapbook) and that at the start of the book there's a table of contents which indicates not only how MANY pages there are (in your case, each photo is a page in this index) but also the date(s) regarding the page, the size of the content and so forth.

The catch here is that the more files you dump into a single directory, the longer it takes for these "table of content" pages to be created.

The old "rule of thumb" is 512 files per directory. Once this line is crossed, you're going to reserve and use more and more system resources to gather the TOC (table of contents) and the more resources that get spent doing this, the less resources there are to DO this job.

Note: Windows 7/8 still have this flaw -- it's not anything YOU have done, yourself.

You noted there's roughly six years worth of images in this one location. Here's what I would recommend...

1. Create a new folder on the SAME drive called something like "Sorted Photos"
2. Within this new folder, create additional folders specific to the YEAR in which the images were taken (ie: 2013, 2012, etc.)
3. This will be painfully slow at first, but open your drive (My Computer > Storage Drive) and do an ADVANCED SEARCH (Press CTRL + F for "Find" and on the left menu of the Find dialog select FILES AND FOLDERS and under advanced features, choose a date range of say, 01-01-2012 through 12-31-2012 and then run the search) Once all the images for that year have been searched for, press <ALT> + <E> and the letter "A" (ALT+E opens the main menu under EDIT, then "A" selects "Select All") and then press <CTRL>+<X> to CUT these images. Go into your new folder under that year and press <CTRL>+<V> to paste them into the new location.
4. Once you've done this for a year or two worth of images, the indexing and search speeds will increase dramatically. Repeat as necessary for all images in the old folder.

Now... once you have them sorted by YEAR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to repeat this process by MONTH which will very likely help index and organize your photos even more so.

The way we do this here is even more elaborate - we take photos and other content and embed them into databases which allows me to add captions/notes, compress the images so that they do not take up nearly a fraction of the drive space and thus I can burn them onto CD or DVD with ease AND still maintain the original image quality. This takes a bit of effort and my software is in-house written and likely further than you want to go at this point, but there are truly endless possibilities how to organize your media while making it painless for both you as well as your machine.

* If you're not revisiting your older images very often, I'd also strongly recommend archiving them. The way we do this here (which maintains protection) is by first creating a zip like archive (RAR format - see link below) which compresses BMP, JPEG and other image formats wonderfully, and then take the images AND the RAR file and burn them onto CD or DVD - two sets are created in case one gets damaged. Once accomplished, they can then be physically removed from the computer and your images are safe... and they're not hurting your computer's efficiency.

** If your machine doesn't want to work WITH you regarding getting these images cleaned up and reorganized, drop me an email and I can design a quick application to do so for you which will basically achieve what was listed above with the least amount of effort (assuming the date-stamps on the files are remotely accurate) - if so, drop me an email here at CentralWare [at] yahoo.com

Good luck and hope this helps!

Original Question

Getting all of my film speed with Rodinal?

Q. I've been playing around with different films and developers and combinations for the past couple of months. I want to branch out from HC-110 and see what else is out there, and what else I like.

I've read a lot about Rodinal not delivering full film speed, and I pretty sure that's what I'm encountering here. It seems like whenever I soup in Rodinal at the standard times given on the Massive Dev Chart (a good place to start, at least), the negatives come out around 2-3 stops dark. I don't care so much for test rolls, but I shot a portrait session with medium format PanF+, developed in Rodinal, and lost at least 4 or 5 frames that could have been great. They were just too thin to recover.

Anyone have any advice here? I just want my exposures to come out the way they would if I was using HC-110. I'm not underexposing in camera, it's definitely something to do with the developer. I'm using 1:50 so far, and souping as documented on my little blog I use to keep track of my experiments:

http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/05/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-panf.html
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/04/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-delta-100.html
I'm sorry, let me clarify: The negatives are thin. The images themselves (after being scanned or printed) are dark. Meaning, underexposed. I didn't state that very well.

Thanks for the info though, I'll run some more tests.

A. Like more density on the negatives you work with do you?

A photographer in Alaska used black and white film which he exposed to have a minimum of emulsion left on the film back after developing.

If it was my roll of film, I'd have had a heart attack and died on the spot! And if I had survived that I would have had my light meters. handheld and built into cameras, looked at plus the shutter speeds and lens apertures and then the film developers!

But back to all seriousness, this fella, lets call him Bill, also modified his print processing procedure, buying and using a digital enlarger timer and with closing the enlarger lens down, printed some of the most grain free images with great tonal scale! Both pics taken out of doors and pics taken indoors in low light conditions

Most lab rats would close their enlarger lenses down a stop or two and use seconds to expose proof sheets and prints.
This fella closed the lens down a few stops more and used tenths and hundredths of seconds as exposure times!

Plus had many more pic taking opportunities than the rest of us using Kodak Tri-X films or Illford's similar b&w product, pushing films to a paltry asa 800, 1200 or 1600 and exposing films for shadow detail.

This I beleive is where Rodinal and other developers used for developing b&w films rated to higher asa's got their so called bad reputations. The photographers could not or did not know how to modify their print processing procedure to take advantage of ther film developers ability to make such delicate looking negatives and the higher quality grain free images that resulted.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

5,000 files in one folder Keeps freezing Windows?

Q. I have taken photos over a period of 6 years.. and ive put them all in one folder..

I have 1.12 GB (1,206,584,242 bytes) of total data in one folder with four sub folders but it has over 90% of the pictures in the root folder of E:\photos\Digital Camera\ <--- theres at least 5,000 files there.

Now when I go into the folder to view files... explorer.exe takes 99% of system resource and never loads anymore... I want to be able to save my files. .but I Dont know what to do.. am I going to have to Delete the folder permanently and loose everything? I have tried folder options with "Do not cache thumbnails" Both on and off.. and nither works.. I have even disabled "Auto search NEtwork Drives and folders"

This is Windows XP SP3 Professional.


Please any help would be appreciated,
Thanks in advance.
im sorry when I said "I have even disabled "Auto Search networks and folders" I meant to actually say - "Automatically search for network folders and printers. " I heard disabling that helps with search times in the folders of explorer.exe to speed things up..
Thanks guys all your feedback was very helpful, Special thanks to TJ and , Ramblin' Man, Also Ramblin' Man I did have one video that was being thumbnailed and it was a corrupted file too. I deleted it. Ive already started archving and the indexing speeds is increasing very well. Thnx to all ur help.

A. In XP (either FAT32 or NTFS formats for where your pictures are stored) there's an inherent catch that affects most all operating systems - I'll try to explain...

Imagine if you will your photos were in a book (ie: scrapbook) and that at the start of the book there's a table of contents which indicates not only how MANY pages there are (in your case, each photo is a page in this index) but also the date(s) regarding the page, the size of the content and so forth.

The catch here is that the more files you dump into a single directory, the longer it takes for these "table of content" pages to be created.

The old "rule of thumb" is 512 files per directory. Once this line is crossed, you're going to reserve and use more and more system resources to gather the TOC (table of contents) and the more resources that get spent doing this, the less resources there are to DO this job.

Note: Windows 7/8 still have this flaw -- it's not anything YOU have done, yourself.

You noted there's roughly six years worth of images in this one location. Here's what I would recommend...

1. Create a new folder on the SAME drive called something like "Sorted Photos"
2. Within this new folder, create additional folders specific to the YEAR in which the images were taken (ie: 2013, 2012, etc.)
3. This will be painfully slow at first, but open your drive (My Computer > Storage Drive) and do an ADVANCED SEARCH (Press CTRL + F for "Find" and on the left menu of the Find dialog select FILES AND FOLDERS and under advanced features, choose a date range of say, 01-01-2012 through 12-31-2012 and then run the search) Once all the images for that year have been searched for, press <ALT> + <E> and the letter "A" (ALT+E opens the main menu under EDIT, then "A" selects "Select All") and then press <CTRL>+<X> to CUT these images. Go into your new folder under that year and press <CTRL>+<V> to paste them into the new location.
4. Once you've done this for a year or two worth of images, the indexing and search speeds will increase dramatically. Repeat as necessary for all images in the old folder.

Now... once you have them sorted by YEAR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to repeat this process by MONTH which will very likely help index and organize your photos even more so.

The way we do this here is even more elaborate - we take photos and other content and embed them into databases which allows me to add captions/notes, compress the images so that they do not take up nearly a fraction of the drive space and thus I can burn them onto CD or DVD with ease AND still maintain the original image quality. This takes a bit of effort and my software is in-house written and likely further than you want to go at this point, but there are truly endless possibilities how to organize your media while making it painless for both you as well as your machine.

* If you're not revisiting your older images very often, I'd also strongly recommend archiving them. The way we do this here (which maintains protection) is by first creating a zip like archive (RAR format - see link below) which compresses BMP, JPEG and other image formats wonderfully, and then take the images AND the RAR file and burn them onto CD or DVD - two sets are created in case one gets damaged. Once accomplished, they can then be physically removed from the computer and your images are safe... and they're not hurting your computer's efficiency.

** If your machine doesn't want to work WITH you regarding getting these images cleaned up and reorganized, drop me an email and I can design a quick application to do so for you which will basically achieve what was listed above with the least amount of effort (assuming the date-stamps on the files are remotely accurate) - if so, drop me an email here at CentralWare [at] yahoo.com

Good luck and hope this helps!

Original Question

Getting all of my film speed with Rodinal?

Q. I've been playing around with different films and developers and combinations for the past couple of months. I want to branch out from HC-110 and see what else is out there, and what else I like.

I've read a lot about Rodinal not delivering full film speed, and I pretty sure that's what I'm encountering here. It seems like whenever I soup in Rodinal at the standard times given on the Massive Dev Chart (a good place to start, at least), the negatives come out around 2-3 stops dark. I don't care so much for test rolls, but I shot a portrait session with medium format PanF+, developed in Rodinal, and lost at least 4 or 5 frames that could have been great. They were just too thin to recover.

Anyone have any advice here? I just want my exposures to come out the way they would if I was using HC-110. I'm not underexposing in camera, it's definitely something to do with the developer. I'm using 1:50 so far, and souping as documented on my little blog I use to keep track of my experiments:

http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/05/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-panf.html
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/04/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-delta-100.html
I'm sorry, let me clarify: The negatives are thin. The images themselves (after being scanned or printed) are dark. Meaning, underexposed. I didn't state that very well.

Thanks for the info though, I'll run some more tests.

A. Like more density on the negatives you work with do you?

A photographer in Alaska used black and white film which he exposed to have a minimum of emulsion left on the film back after developing.

If it was my roll of film, I'd have had a heart attack and died on the spot! And if I had survived that I would have had my light meters. handheld and built into cameras, looked at plus the shutter speeds and lens apertures and then the film developers!

But back to all seriousness, this fella, lets call him Bill, also modified his print processing procedure, buying and using a digital enlarger timer and with closing the enlarger lens down, printed some of the most grain free images with great tonal scale! Both pics taken out of doors and pics taken indoors in low light conditions

Most lab rats would close their enlarger lenses down a stop or two and use seconds to expose proof sheets and prints.
This fella closed the lens down a few stops more and used tenths and hundredths of seconds as exposure times!

Plus had many more pic taking opportunities than the rest of us using Kodak Tri-X films or Illford's similar b&w product, pushing films to a paltry asa 800, 1200 or 1600 and exposing films for shadow detail.

This I beleive is where Rodinal and other developers used for developing b&w films rated to higher asa's got their so called bad reputations. The photographers could not or did not know how to modify their print processing procedure to take advantage of ther film developers ability to make such delicate looking negatives and the higher quality grain free images that resulted.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

What is the difference between these three cameras ?

Q. http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2222photo.jpg?w=611&h=458

The one on the right, middle and the one on the left ? Can they all take pictures like this :

http://500px.com/photo/4376010
http://500px.com/photo/1727142
http://500px.com/photo/23814435
http://500px.com/photo/34359580

What is the difference between these three cameras ? Thanks.

A. They are all digital SLR's. The one on the right looks like a medium format, possibly a Pentax 645; the others are the more widely used FX or DX format.

Yes, they can all be used to take pictures like your examples. Do NOT make the assumption that the ownership of any of these cameras will in itself enable the neophyte to immediately go out and take photographs of this standard. This would be a very expensive mistake. I say this because of your wording in the question:
'Can they all take pictures like this'
Rather as if it's the camera that takes the photograph. As you can see, cameras need the assistance of a knowledgeable and experienced photographer to take good photographs. That's why the humans are there, accompanying the cameras.

Original Question

What type of Film did video cameras for Hollywood use in the 1970's to make Hollywood movies?

Q. I know that people who made home movies in the 70's used 35mm, 16mm, 8mm any others if you know???

I assume it would have been different and or better than the type of film used for home movie films of the same time???

Can you name the calibers and sizes of professional hollywood movie Video Camera film???

I can find out a lot about home movie making back then but not about what movie studios of hollywood used that is why i am asking.

Also about today's recording media it is probably since we are in the digital age. Are hollywood movie Cameras recording Digitally to a Hard Drive or something like that nowadays???

I figure any type of video tape for recording a hollywood movie has not been used in years because we are in the digital age. So any videos Cameras hollywood uses today is saving to a Hard Drive Digitally is what i figure anyway.

I always wondered to are Video Cameras going back to the 70's to Present Day 2013 what types of power sources did they use like Car Batteries,Power Cords plugged to wall outlets or some other type of battery???

I say Car Batteries and power cords plugged to wall outlets because i figure it would take something pretty heavy duty to run a Video Camera for a Movie and not some lithium ion rechargeable proprietary battery like home video cameras use today in the present day.


I ask these questions because i have always had an interest in Video and Still Cameras. Both of the Consumer Home Category and the Big Leauges where Movies of Hollywood for the Big Screen are made.

I Really do appreciate your helpful answers community.

A. Hollywood movies since the era of "talkies" have been shot on either 1 inch or 2 inch wide film strips. Known in the trade as "35mm" and "65mm". Silent movies and home movies from the 20s used 16mm or 1/2 inch wide film. then Kodak came out with its 8mm format for home movie use. 8mm is the same identical film as 16mm double perf but only exposed for half the width. the reel is flipped at the end and then the other side is exposed. 8mm is also 16 fps instead of 24 fps used for theatrical movies. thus it consumed a lot less film making it affordable for home use. after exposure, the double shot camera reel was developed, split down the center and spliced together to make a single 3.5 minute reel of 1/4 inch wide film with sprocket holes on one side only. The reels for 8mm film are the same as for 1/4 inch audio tape except they have a feature that prevents them from being mounted backwards on the projector.

when videotape came out with portable cameras for consumer use that pretty much ended the 8mm movie era. Kodak and other camera makers came out with Super8 which was a cartridge film system to try and compete. Compared to 8mm it offered improvements, like sound, higher frame rate (18 fps) slightly larger image size, battery power, and ease of handling, but the public preferred VHS that could be viewed on the TV set instead of requiring a projector and screen.

the majority of Hollywood movies are still shot on 65mm film. the film is often converted to 4k video for the purpose of editing and special effects creation and then regenerated back to film for theatrical use. it has only been very recently that CCD technology has improved to allow 4k video to be imaged directly by a digital camera, so that is the future of movie making as it matches the 4k video editing that has been done in Hollywood since the 1980s.. HDTV is 1k video for comparison.

there is a huge gap in quality between equipment made for the motion picture industry and home use. that is mostly because the big screen requires far more resolution than a TV set.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Can my computer run DayZ at ____ specs?

Q. What specs do you think this computer can run DayZ at? Low? Normal? High? Very High?
Also, how good is the sound going to be.
Valkyrie CZ-17 Gaming Laptop
1 x Case ( Valkyrie CZ-17 17.3" Full HD 1920x1080 LED-Backlit Display Laptop w/HDMI Port, E-SATA, USB 3.0, Illuminated Keyboard, Li-Ion Battery, Universal AC Power Adapter - Original Metallic black )
1 x Processor ( Intel® Core� i7-3630QM Mobile Processor (4x 2.4GHz/6MB L3 Cache) )
1 x Memory ( 8GB [8GB x 1] 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM [Laptop Memory] - G.SKILL )
1 x Video Card ( NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX 4GB GDDR5 Video w/ NVIDIA Optimus [CZ-17] )
1 x Primary Hard Drive ( 750 GB 7200rpm Serial-ATA Super Slim Laptop Hard Drive )
0 x Data Hard Drive ( None )
1 x Optical Drive ( 6X Blu-Ray-R/8x Dual Format DVD±R/±RW + 24x CD-R/RW Combo Drive [CZ-17] )
1 x Flash Media Reader / Writer ( Built-in 4-in-1 Media Card Reader/Writer [Laptop] )
1 x Sound Card ( HD Audio with THX TrueStudio Pro )
1 x Network Card ( Killer E2200 Gaming Networking )
1 x Internal Wireless Network Adapter ( Intel Ultimate-N 6300 802.11 a/b/g/n 450Mbps Dual-Band Wi-Fi )
1 x Operating System ( Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium + Office Starter 2010 (Includes basic versions of Word and Excel) - 64-Bit )
1 x Additional Software ( Microsoft Office 2013 Home and Student - Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote included )
1 x USB Ports ( Built-in 2x USB 2.0 Ports + 3x USB 3.0 Port [Laptop] )
0 x Carrying Case ( None )
1 x Video Camera ( Built-in 3.0 Mega Pixels Digital Web Video Camera )

A. On max.

Original Question

5,000 files in one folder Keeps freezing Windows?

Q. I have taken photos over a period of 6 years.. and ive put them all in one folder..

I have 1.12 GB (1,206,584,242 bytes) of total data in one folder with four sub folders but it has over 90% of the pictures in the root folder of E:\photos\Digital Camera\ <--- theres at least 5,000 files there.

Now when I go into the folder to view files... explorer.exe takes 99% of system resource and never loads anymore... I want to be able to save my files. .but I Dont know what to do.. am I going to have to Delete the folder permanently and loose everything? I have tried folder options with "Do not cache thumbnails" Both on and off.. and nither works.. I have even disabled "Auto search NEtwork Drives and folders"

This is Windows XP SP3 Professional.


Please any help would be appreciated,
Thanks in advance.
im sorry when I said "I have even disabled "Auto Search networks and folders" I meant to actually say - "Automatically search for network folders and printers. " I heard disabling that helps with search times in the folders of explorer.exe to speed things up..
Thanks guys all your feedback was very helpful, Special thanks to TJ and , Ramblin' Man, Also Ramblin' Man I did have one video that was being thumbnailed and it was a corrupted file too. I deleted it. Ive already started archving and the indexing speeds is increasing very well. Thnx to all ur help.

A. In XP (either FAT32 or NTFS formats for where your pictures are stored) there's an inherent catch that affects most all operating systems - I'll try to explain...

Imagine if you will your photos were in a book (ie: scrapbook) and that at the start of the book there's a table of contents which indicates not only how MANY pages there are (in your case, each photo is a page in this index) but also the date(s) regarding the page, the size of the content and so forth.

The catch here is that the more files you dump into a single directory, the longer it takes for these "table of content" pages to be created.

The old "rule of thumb" is 512 files per directory. Once this line is crossed, you're going to reserve and use more and more system resources to gather the TOC (table of contents) and the more resources that get spent doing this, the less resources there are to DO this job.

Note: Windows 7/8 still have this flaw -- it's not anything YOU have done, yourself.

You noted there's roughly six years worth of images in this one location. Here's what I would recommend...

1. Create a new folder on the SAME drive called something like "Sorted Photos"
2. Within this new folder, create additional folders specific to the YEAR in which the images were taken (ie: 2013, 2012, etc.)
3. This will be painfully slow at first, but open your drive (My Computer > Storage Drive) and do an ADVANCED SEARCH (Press CTRL + F for "Find" and on the left menu of the Find dialog select FILES AND FOLDERS and under advanced features, choose a date range of say, 01-01-2012 through 12-31-2012 and then run the search) Once all the images for that year have been searched for, press <ALT> + <E> and the letter "A" (ALT+E opens the main menu under EDIT, then "A" selects "Select All") and then press <CTRL>+<X> to CUT these images. Go into your new folder under that year and press <CTRL>+<V> to paste them into the new location.
4. Once you've done this for a year or two worth of images, the indexing and search speeds will increase dramatically. Repeat as necessary for all images in the old folder.

Now... once you have them sorted by YEAR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to repeat this process by MONTH which will very likely help index and organize your photos even more so.

The way we do this here is even more elaborate - we take photos and other content and embed them into databases which allows me to add captions/notes, compress the images so that they do not take up nearly a fraction of the drive space and thus I can burn them onto CD or DVD with ease AND still maintain the original image quality. This takes a bit of effort and my software is in-house written and likely further than you want to go at this point, but there are truly endless possibilities how to organize your media while making it painless for both you as well as your machine.

* If you're not revisiting your older images very often, I'd also strongly recommend archiving them. The way we do this here (which maintains protection) is by first creating a zip like archive (RAR format - see link below) which compresses BMP, JPEG and other image formats wonderfully, and then take the images AND the RAR file and burn them onto CD or DVD - two sets are created in case one gets damaged. Once accomplished, they can then be physically removed from the computer and your images are safe... and they're not hurting your computer's efficiency.

** If your machine doesn't want to work WITH you regarding getting these images cleaned up and reorganized, drop me an email and I can design a quick application to do so for you which will basically achieve what was listed above with the least amount of effort (assuming the date-stamps on the files are remotely accurate) - if so, drop me an email here at CentralWare [at] yahoo.com

Good luck and hope this helps!

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

5,000 files in one folder Keeps freezing Windows?

Q. I have taken photos over a period of 6 years.. and ive put them all in one folder..

I have 1.12 GB (1,206,584,242 bytes) of total data in one folder with four sub folders but it has over 90% of the pictures in the root folder of E:\photos\Digital Camera\ <--- theres at least 5,000 files there.

Now when I go into the folder to view files... explorer.exe takes 99% of system resource and never loads anymore... I want to be able to save my files. .but I Dont know what to do.. am I going to have to Delete the folder permanently and loose everything? I have tried folder options with "Do not cache thumbnails" Both on and off.. and nither works.. I have even disabled "Auto search NEtwork Drives and folders"

This is Windows XP SP3 Professional.


Please any help would be appreciated,
Thanks in advance.
im sorry when I said "I have even disabled "Auto Search networks and folders" I meant to actually say - "Automatically search for network folders and printers. " I heard disabling that helps with search times in the folders of explorer.exe to speed things up..
Thanks guys all your feedback was very helpful, Special thanks to TJ and , Ramblin' Man, Also Ramblin' Man I did have one video that was being thumbnailed and it was a corrupted file too. I deleted it. Ive already started archving and the indexing speeds is increasing very well. Thnx to all ur help.

A. In XP (either FAT32 or NTFS formats for where your pictures are stored) there's an inherent catch that affects most all operating systems - I'll try to explain...

Imagine if you will your photos were in a book (ie: scrapbook) and that at the start of the book there's a table of contents which indicates not only how MANY pages there are (in your case, each photo is a page in this index) but also the date(s) regarding the page, the size of the content and so forth.

The catch here is that the more files you dump into a single directory, the longer it takes for these "table of content" pages to be created.

The old "rule of thumb" is 512 files per directory. Once this line is crossed, you're going to reserve and use more and more system resources to gather the TOC (table of contents) and the more resources that get spent doing this, the less resources there are to DO this job.

Note: Windows 7/8 still have this flaw -- it's not anything YOU have done, yourself.

You noted there's roughly six years worth of images in this one location. Here's what I would recommend...

1. Create a new folder on the SAME drive called something like "Sorted Photos"
2. Within this new folder, create additional folders specific to the YEAR in which the images were taken (ie: 2013, 2012, etc.)
3. This will be painfully slow at first, but open your drive (My Computer > Storage Drive) and do an ADVANCED SEARCH (Press CTRL + F for "Find" and on the left menu of the Find dialog select FILES AND FOLDERS and under advanced features, choose a date range of say, 01-01-2012 through 12-31-2012 and then run the search) Once all the images for that year have been searched for, press <ALT> + <E> and the letter "A" (ALT+E opens the main menu under EDIT, then "A" selects "Select All") and then press <CTRL>+<X> to CUT these images. Go into your new folder under that year and press <CTRL>+<V> to paste them into the new location.
4. Once you've done this for a year or two worth of images, the indexing and search speeds will increase dramatically. Repeat as necessary for all images in the old folder.

Now... once you have them sorted by YEAR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to repeat this process by MONTH which will very likely help index and organize your photos even more so.

The way we do this here is even more elaborate - we take photos and other content and embed them into databases which allows me to add captions/notes, compress the images so that they do not take up nearly a fraction of the drive space and thus I can burn them onto CD or DVD with ease AND still maintain the original image quality. This takes a bit of effort and my software is in-house written and likely further than you want to go at this point, but there are truly endless possibilities how to organize your media while making it painless for both you as well as your machine.

* If you're not revisiting your older images very often, I'd also strongly recommend archiving them. The way we do this here (which maintains protection) is by first creating a zip like archive (RAR format - see link below) which compresses BMP, JPEG and other image formats wonderfully, and then take the images AND the RAR file and burn them onto CD or DVD - two sets are created in case one gets damaged. Once accomplished, they can then be physically removed from the computer and your images are safe... and they're not hurting your computer's efficiency.

** If your machine doesn't want to work WITH you regarding getting these images cleaned up and reorganized, drop me an email and I can design a quick application to do so for you which will basically achieve what was listed above with the least amount of effort (assuming the date-stamps on the files are remotely accurate) - if so, drop me an email here at CentralWare [at] yahoo.com

Good luck and hope this helps!

Original Question

Which Desktop should I get?

Q. Difference between these two desktops?
They are both Dell XPS 8500. Which one should I get? There is a 50 $ price difference.
First One-
3rd Gen Intel® Core™ i5-3350P processor
Features a 6MB cache and 3.1GHz processor speed with Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz.
Intel® Core™ i5 processor
Features smart 4-way processing performance with a speed boost.
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology
Automatically speeds up your processor when your PC needs extra performance.
8GB DDR3 SDRAM
For multitasking power, expandable to 32GB.

Multiformat DVD±RW/CD-RW drive
Create custom DVDs and CDs.

1TB Serial ATA hard drive (7200 rpm)
Offers spacious storage and fast read/write times.
AMD Radeon HD 7570 graphics

Feature 1GB GDDR5 dedicated video memory for lush images with intricate detail. HDMI output for connection to an HDTV.

4 USB 3.0 and 6 USB 2.0 ports
For fast digital video, audio and data transfer.
Built-in Dell Wireless 1703 high-speed wireless LAN (802.11b/g/n)
Connect to the Internet without wires.

Bluetooth 4.0 interface
Easily link with other Bluetooth-enabled devices, such as a mobile phone or MP3 player.

Built-in Ethernet LAN
With RJ-45 connector for quick and easy wired Web connection.

Microsoft Windows 8 operating system preinstalled
Provides a stable platform for word processing, Web navigation, gaming, media storage and more.
Software package included
With CyberLink Media Suite Essentials and more. Includes 1-month trial of Microsoft Office 365.

There is also Internal high-definition 7.1 Performance Audio with Waves MaxxAudio
IT is 749.99 $.

Here is the other one.
3rd Gen Intel® Core™ i5-3350P processor
Features a 6MB cache and 3.1GHz processor speed with Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz.
Intel® Core™ i5 processor

Features smart 4-way processing performance with a speed boost.
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology
Automatically speeds up your processor when your PC needs extra performance.
8GB DDR3 SDRAM
For multitasking power, expandable to 32GB.
Multiformat DVD±RW/CD-RW drive
Lets you create custom DVDs and CDs.
1TB Serial ATA III hard drive (7200 rpm)
Offers spacious storage and fast read/write times. The 16MB cache provides enhanced performance.
AMD Radeon HD 7570 graphics
Feature 1GB DDR5 dedicated video memory for lush images with intricate detail. HDMI output for connection to an HDTV.
19-in-1 media reader
Supports Secure Digital, Secure Digital High Capacity, miniSD, microSD, MultiMediaCard, Reduced-Size MultiMediaCard, MultiMediaCard Plus, MultiMediaCard micro, RD MultiMediaCard Plus and Compact Flash I/II formats.
Also supports SmartMedia, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Duo, Memory Stick PRO, Memory Stick PRO Duo, Memory Stick Micro, xD-Picture Card and Microdrive formats.
4 USB 3.0 and 6 USB 2.0 ports
For fast digital video, audio and data transfer.
Built-in Dell Wireless 1703 LAN (802.11b/g/n)
Connect to the Internet without wires.
Bluetooth 4.0 + LE interface
Easily link with other Bluetooth-enabled devices, such as a mobile phone or MP3 player.
Built-in 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet LAN
For quick and easy wired Web connection.
Microsoft Windows 8 64-bit operating system preinstalled
Provides a stable platform for word processing, Web navigation, gaming, media storage and more.
Software package included
With CyberLink Media Suite Essentials.

THERE is also
Integrated 7.1-channel with Waves MaxxAudio

THIS one is 679.99$






Which one should I get? I am really confused. Can u also tell me the difference between the two Ethernet types, GDDR5 vs DDR5 and the sound systems and also are the hard drive speeds make any difference with SATA and SATA III. At last and tell me which one is bang for the buck. Thank you in advance. Please describe of why you know.

A. The $679.99 desktop seems to be a better buy since it has a memory card reader. The addition of a memory card reader allows you to read memory cards such as those from digital cameras and a few other devices to be used.

The Ethernet ports are the same since the desktops are the same model which, I presume, uses the same motherboard. The different types of Ethernet LAN are the theoretical speeds that the Ethernet is able to handle, most if not all new computers in 2013 come with 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet LAN. The more speeds do not matter since everything is restricted by internet speeds by your internet provider (Verizon, Comcast,etc...)or by networking equipment in your home. If you connect to your internet with a cable to your router or modem, the Dell Ethernet LAN is used. If you use WiFi, then the Dell wireless LAN is used.

There is no difference between GDDR5 and DDR5 since they are labelled under the amd radeon 7570 card which is a dedicated card with its own memory. DDR5 is GDDR5 when it is under a graphics card. A dedicated card is for better performance and graphics for gaming or videos.

Hard Drives in pre-built computers are hard to find out, but again there should not be a difference since they only have one hard drive but the xps 8500 has its hard drive connected to a SATA III port.

The sound systems does not make any difference as many integrated sound systems are sufficient enough. You may have to buy separate speakers for either of the computers which adds to your computer costs since new computers may not come with speakers.

The $679.99 model is better since it costs less and has the same specs and a memory card reader. Keep in mind there are other things that may increase the price of your desktop such as taxes and additional items that are not included such as speakers and monitors. If you are buying from a store, haggle with the manager for a better price, be sure to be kind to them. Best regards to you

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Getting all of my film speed with Rodinal?

Q. I've been playing around with different films and developers and combinations for the past couple of months. I want to branch out from HC-110 and see what else is out there, and what else I like.

I've read a lot about Rodinal not delivering full film speed, and I pretty sure that's what I'm encountering here. It seems like whenever I soup in Rodinal at the standard times given on the Massive Dev Chart (a good place to start, at least), the negatives come out around 2-3 stops dark. I don't care so much for test rolls, but I shot a portrait session with medium format PanF+, developed in Rodinal, and lost at least 4 or 5 frames that could have been great. They were just too thin to recover.

Anyone have any advice here? I just want my exposures to come out the way they would if I was using HC-110. I'm not underexposing in camera, it's definitely something to do with the developer. I'm using 1:50 so far, and souping as documented on my little blog I use to keep track of my experiments:

http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/05/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-panf.html
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/04/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-delta-100.html
I'm sorry, let me clarify: The negatives are thin. The images themselves (after being scanned or printed) are dark. Meaning, underexposed. I didn't state that very well.

Thanks for the info though, I'll run some more tests.

A. Like more density on the negatives you work with do you?

A photographer in Alaska used black and white film which he exposed to have a minimum of emulsion left on the film back after developing.

If it was my roll of film, I'd have had a heart attack and died on the spot! And if I had survived that I would have had my light meters. handheld and built into cameras, looked at plus the shutter speeds and lens apertures and then the film developers!

But back to all seriousness, this fella, lets call him Bill, also modified his print processing procedure, buying and using a digital enlarger timer and with closing the enlarger lens down, printed some of the most grain free images with great tonal scale! Both pics taken out of doors and pics taken indoors in low light conditions

Most lab rats would close their enlarger lenses down a stop or two and use seconds to expose proof sheets and prints.
This fella closed the lens down a few stops more and used tenths and hundredths of seconds as exposure times!

Plus had many more pic taking opportunities than the rest of us using Kodak Tri-X films or Illford's similar b&w product, pushing films to a paltry asa 800, 1200 or 1600 and exposing films for shadow detail.

This I beleive is where Rodinal and other developers used for developing b&w films rated to higher asa's got their so called bad reputations. The photographers could not or did not know how to modify their print processing procedure to take advantage of ther film developers ability to make such delicate looking negatives and the higher quality grain free images that resulted.

Original Question

What is the difference between these three cameras ?

Q. http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2222photo.jpg?w=611&h=458

The one on the right, middle and the one on the left ? Can they all take pictures like this :

http://500px.com/photo/4376010
http://500px.com/photo/1727142
http://500px.com/photo/23814435
http://500px.com/photo/34359580

What is the difference between these three cameras ? Thanks.

A. They are all digital SLR's. The one on the right looks like a medium format, possibly a Pentax 645; the others are the more widely used FX or DX format.

Yes, they can all be used to take pictures like your examples. Do NOT make the assumption that the ownership of any of these cameras will in itself enable the neophyte to immediately go out and take photographs of this standard. This would be a very expensive mistake. I say this because of your wording in the question:
'Can they all take pictures like this'
Rather as if it's the camera that takes the photograph. As you can see, cameras need the assistance of a knowledgeable and experienced photographer to take good photographs. That's why the humans are there, accompanying the cameras.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers