Renaming and combining files ?

[Rita]

Hi Al, Wow, you really put all your time into this, I can't thank you enough! Okay, your post last nite got me thinking (but too late for my brain) But thought I'd tackle it this morning. soooooo, I think I solved the problem, with your help of course! (First my apologies for confusing terms like file and folder - often a offshot of my -off computer- in hand 'files' etc.) My settings are a little different in my GC version, so I took a screenshot of the settings, so I would be sure to use the right ones if the sort worked out well. A few more settings I think fixed this. One was using both: Change Index and Add Index and then; Remove additional digits (that is what helped it generating all those extra numbers!) So, did the left side sort first, and they went 002, 004, 006, 008 and more. Voila ! Now I realized I have a few front pages, that are Roman Numeral so thought it best to remove these from both files. And then did a new sort to restart the numbers back to 002. Then, looking at the right side, I realized if I'm going to have the pages correspond such as 001, 002, 003 etc. I needed to have the right side to start with 001, 003, to offset the other file 002, 004. So, almost renamed the left side, but then looked at the offset and seen if I put a '1' in there there is a button I can say Subtract Index from Offset and Voila, that did it again! Started them at 001. So, both files are now matching and I'm almost afraid to mix them incase! I also, as a safety, added LLL to all the left files and RRR to all the Right pages this way when mixed at the very least I could tell which ones are which at least! Whew ! Now I also colored all the right files so when I dropped them in I can see them and just dropped them in and voila, they are all every second file, showing up easily now and properly mixed too. So, took a little bit of work to get it working but worked like a charm. Couldn't have done it without your help for sure! So thankful for helping me work though this. Thought you'd enjoy the end results. Inquiring minds and all. ~Rita --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, Alfred J Treder <altreder@...> wrote: > > Rita, > > We are definitely making progress. One minor thing: the images are files, you agree, but when you put a collection of files into something, that something is a folder, not a file. You actually CAN put files into one file, making a larger multipage file. I believe you can do that with TIFF and with PDF files. However, that is similar to gluing them into a scrapbook, because getting them individually out of the big scrapbook means effectively breaking the glue or cutting up the page, if you get my metaphor. So, I'm pretty sure you have a FOLDER of left page images (files) and another FOLDER of right page image files. That must be true, or you wouldn't be getting each image file renumbered (even if weirdly) by GC otherwise. > > I understand now how you got two folders of image files, left and right, and how they are in order within the folders but can't be meshed without renaming the files. Apparently all the repeat shots were done at the time of the original shoot rather than later, because you indicated some missing sequence numbers but no need to stick a later shot back in with earlier ones (other than the left/right problem). Makes it much simpler. > > Here is what you said about results of your first try: > ********************************************************************************************************************************************** > +++Okay, to save time here, the files with the new renames look like this: > LEFT: 001Balt, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book, 1347Book, 1349Book and so on, looks like all two by two like that all the way to 1663Book > > Right Side: 002Book, 1008Book, 1010Book, 1012Book, 1014Book all the way until 1332Book again two by two. > *********************************************************************************************************** > I think you meant that LEFT starts with 001Book, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book. That seems to mean there is an offset of 1339 added to all the indices except the very first one, which is possible, I guess. There is a selectable offset in this function of GC, and the entry for it is right there with the entries for number of digits and how much to increment the index each iteration. You should have noticed any such number and wondered about it, so I wonder what that menu page showed you. If you entered any number for offset, it would be zero, I would think. Anyway, check that. > > The right side has a different apparent offset of 1004, as if you changed your entry for offset. Another weirdness is that you set the number of digits to three, and got three for the first file, but all the others have four. It's possible that GC will give you four digits as the result even if you pick 3, if it needs the room to express the result of adding the offset plus the index increment. So maybe the number of digits isn't really weird, and the only funny thing is the offset, which changes each time you do it. > > If you check your settings and find that there is a zero entry for offset, or a blank there, then somehow your current copy of GC is putting in an offset behind the scenes, so to speak. If that was happening, it wouldn't be so weird that the offset changes each time you run. That would be a malfunction of the software, and who knows what SHOULD come out. But fixing that is probably as simple as putting the preference files in the trash and then restarting GC. If that sounds weird, let me know, because it's a different topic that will take this conversation in an entirely different direction. > > Al > > " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. " > > -- Arthur C. Clarke > > On Feb 12, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Rita wrote: > > Hi Al, > Okay inquiring minds. > > Let me try answer this bit by bit, here goes: > > > Now I have a better calibration on how you're thinking, so this may sound a little different. > > +++Oh, I hope so! > > > First, let's clarify a term you are using. Actually, two terms. What you call "images" are that, but they are in the form of "files". You can properly call them "image files". Each image is a file. A collection of files is put in a folder, so you have a folder of files. These are the terms as GC uses them. > > +++Okay sorry if I wasn't clear. yes, these are all tiff files, shot by a camera, of the pages of a book. All the right side was done first (i think) then all the left side. This was for ease of not having to move the book. > +++So, final output was 300 images/files of book pages, but out of order, since all the right side (again I think right was first) and all the left side. They were shot seperately, so once one side was done, it was put in a file, and the other side was done. That is how they ended up in two files. Left and Right. (and so numbers are not consequetive or correct per se. > > > In another post I saw you talk (isn't that a strange phrase? but it's true) about your images as named IMG_2345, IMG_2346, etc. Each image is a file with that name, of course. I have seen that format before, and I understand it. The camera names each image file as the concatenation of the prefix "IMG_" and an index number that must have started as 0001 when the camera was brand new, and will go back to 0001 after it reaches 9999. The camera always assigns such indices in numerical sequence, but only for new exposures, so if any exposure was deleted the sequence number for that frame would seem to be skipped when you look at what is left in the camera. When the book was photographed page by page, I would think it was done in sequence, so if NO frames were deleted in that process, all the odd-numbered files would be one side (left or right) and the even-numbered files would be the other side. You probably aren't that lucky with 300 exposures, but it's possible. If it were true, you could just put all the image files in one folder and they would automatically sort into what you want. > > +++yes, the camera numbers all the images as they are taken. There was not many reshots, so only perhaps one or two that need to be fixed. But, all the images in LEFT, are in the correct order. going from pg 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 etc. Of the book page numbers. RIght side is in correct order too, even though the numbering won't work to combine. > > > But you have what must be two folders of about 150 files each, which have somehow been segregated into left-hand pages and right-hand pages. And that was done probably because the image file numbers as they came out of the camera were not all neatly odd-numbered for left side and even-numbered for right side (or vice versa). They might even have had to go back and reshoot some pages which didn't turn out well enough the first time, so some of the final images may have index numbers that look out of sequence. You haven't talked about that yet, but it seems it must be part of your problem. So, in your reply, please tell me about the apparent order of the image files in the two folders, and how you know which is a left page and which is on the right. Is that determined only by the appearance of the imaged page? If so, somebody must have sorted through the images visually, and put left-looking pages in one folder and right-looking pages in the other folder. Given that the folders are correctly filled, what does a list of image filenames look like? > > +++As I said it was easy to seperate the two sides. Just did all the left side, put them in a file, finished all the right side, put them in another file. Simple to sort. And yes, only on looking at the image itself now can you see the page. The numbers are all keeping them in order, but make no sense for putting them two sides together and hoping they will sort properly. > your asking for file names ? Do you want file names after they were renamed or file names as they originally are ? > > Are the indices all either odd or even, with no apparent gaps in sequence? How are the pages, either left or right, put into correct numerical page sequence? Inquiring minds crave details like these. > > +++Okay, to save time here, the files with the new renames look like this: > LEFT: 001Balt, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book, 1347Book, 1349Book and so on, looks like all two by two like that all the way to 1663Book > > Right Side: 002Book, 1008Book, 1010Book, 1012Book, 1014Book all the way until 1332Book again two by two. > > > Now, in GC: > > There is no need to "Remove Existing Index", although part of your existing filename is an index. That option should be unchecked, to reduce any confusion. GC does not need to look at the existing filename and decide that part of it is an index to be removed. If you are using "Change Name", GC will gladly replace the entire name (including the numbers in it) with whatever you put in the little window, so those numbers disappear. > > > > Under the "Extension" Menu, you don't need to choose anything, I think, and the extension will remain what it was (you said it was "tif"). You do not want to change the extension at all, since that is sacred info. > > > > When you start the renaming process, the files are already in some order, probably numerical order of the numbers in the filename. GC will preserve exactly that sequence of files and give them the neat index numbers you specify. But it will do that only for the files that are selected in the folder. If you want to rename all the files in the folder you have to select all of them. > > > > I do not understand the results you got. Maybe you didn't completely spell out those results. It looks like there is no Bookname in the new names, unless you meant Bookname is to be implied as showing up either before or after the numbers you listed. You said the first result was 001, followed by 1341, 1343, 1345, which is very strange since the first result is three digits and the others are four, besides the fact that the four digits don't seem to have followed from 001 or even 0001. Then the Right file starts with a three digit 002 and proceeds normally except with an unwanted 1 at the front. This confuses me. Show me a list of the old filenames and the corresponding new filenames. > > > > This is a workable problem. Let's keep going here. > > > +++Okay, so looking at the first one from 001 to 1341 is only one in each folder ,I don't really care, as I could manually sort those. So that is not the big concern here, just to clear that up. > What is the concern is that I need two folders with the files named properly so they will sort correctly when they are thrown together. > I am just repeating what we already know I guess, but just wanted to make that clear. > So, here are some of the original file names: > Left: > IMG4719.tif > IMG4721.tif > IMG4722.tif > and so on until IMG4882.tif > > Right: > IMG4549.tif > IMG4550.tif > IMG4551.tif > IMG4552.tif > > As far as the settings I used, perhaps something threw it off. I added the name Book to be added after the number. > Frankly doesn't matter how many numbers it uses to sort them as long as we get a good sort by twos on left and by twos on right so they will come together correctly. So could be 5 digit even. > > I hope this answers your questions, if I've forgotten anything that might be important let me know. > Thanks for helping me sort this out! Really appreciate all your time. > ~Rita >

[Alfred J Treder]

Rita,That's outstanding! Glad we made it through to the end.You haven't told me how that offset got in there, or why it was different between left and right folder trials. But you did find a way to get your job done, and apparently your copy of GC is not corrupted, so we don't have to go into software recovery mode.I'm happy to leave it there.Glad to help. Al“ You only live once. But if you work it right, once is enough.”-- Fred Allen  On Feb 13, 2012, at 8:04 AM, Rita wrote:   Hi Al, Wow, you really put all your time into this, I can't thank you enough! Okay, your post last nite got me thinking (but too late for my brain) But thought I'd tackle it this morning. soooooo, I think I solved the problem, with your help of course! (First my apologies for confusing terms like file and folder - often a offshot of my -off computer- in hand 'files' etc.) My settings are a little different in my GC version, so I took a screenshot of the settings, so I would be sure to use the right ones if the sort worked out well. A few more settings I think fixed this. One was using both: Change Index and Add Index and then; Remove additional digits (that is what helped it generating all those extra numbers!) So, did the left side sort first, and they went 002, 004, 006, 008 and more. Voila ! Now I realized I have a few front pages, that are Roman Numeral so thought it best to remove these from both files. And then did a new sort to restart the numbers back to 002. Then, looking at the right side, I realized if I'm going to have the pages correspond such as 001, 002, 003 etc. I needed to have the right side to start with 001, 003, to offset the other file 002, 004. So, almost renamed the left side, but then looked at the offset and seen if I put a '1' in there there is a button I can say Subtract Index from Offset and Voila, that did it again! Started them at 001. So, both files are now matching and I'm almost afraid to mix them incase! I also, as a safety, added LLL to all the left files and RRR to all the Right pages this way when mixed at the very least I could tell which ones are which at least! Whew ! Now I also colored all the right files so when I dropped them in I can see them and just dropped them in and voila, they are all every second file, showing up easily now and properly mixed too. So, took a little bit of work to get it working but worked like a charm. Couldn't have done it without your help for sure! So thankful for helping me work though this. Thought you'd enjoy the end results. Inquiring minds and all. ~Rita --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, Alfred J Treder <altreder@...> wrote: > > Rita, > > We are definitely making progress. One minor thing: the images are files, you agree, but when you put a collection of files into something, that something is a folder, not a file. You actually CAN put files into one file, making a larger multipage file. I believe you can do that with TIFF and with PDF files. However, that is similar to gluing them into a scrapbook, because getting them individually out of the big scrapbook means effectively breaking the glue or cutting up the page, if you get my metaphor. So, I'm pretty sure you have a FOLDER of left page images (files) and another FOLDER of right page image files. That must be true, or you wouldn't be getting each image file renumbered (even if weirdly) by GC otherwise. > > I understand now how you got two folders of image files, left and right, and how they are in order within the folders but can't be meshed without renaming the files. Apparently all the repeat shots were done at the time of the original shoot rather than later, because you indicated some missing sequence numbers but no need to stick a later shot back in with earlier ones (other than the left/right problem). Makes it much simpler. > > Here is what you said about results of your first try: > ********************************************************************************************************************************************** > +++Okay, to save time here, the files with the new renames look like this: > LEFT: 001Balt, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book, 1347Book, 1349Book and so on, looks like all two by two like that all the way to 1663Book > > Right Side: 002Book, 1008Book, 1010Book, 1012Book, 1014Book all the way until 1332Book again two by two. > *********************************************************************************************************** > I think you meant that LEFT starts with 001Book, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book. That seems to mean there is an offset of 1339 added to all the indices except the very first one, which is possible, I guess. There is a selectable offset in this function of GC, and the entry for it is right there with the entries for number of digits and how much to increment the index each iteration. You should have noticed any such number and wondered about it, so I wonder what that menu page showed you. If you entered any number for offset, it would be zero, I would think. Anyway, check that. > > The right side has a different apparent offset of 1004, as if you changed your entry for offset. Another weirdness is that you set the number of digits to three, and got three for the first file, but all the others have four. It's possible that GC will give you four digits as the result even if you pick 3, if it needs the room to express the result of adding the offset plus the index increment. So maybe the number of digits isn't really weird, and the only funny thing is the offset, which changes each time you do it. > > If you check your settings and find that there is a zero entry for offset, or a blank there, then somehow your current copy of GC is putting in an offset behind the scenes, so to speak. If that was happening, it wouldn't be so weird that the offset changes each time you run. That would be a malfunction of the software, and who knows what SHOULD come out. But fixing that is probably as simple as putting the preference files in the trash and then restarting GC. If that sounds weird, let me know, because it's a different topic that will take this conversation in an entirely different direction. > > Al > > " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. " > > -- Arthur C. Clarke > > On Feb 12, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Rita wrote: > > Hi Al, > Okay inquiring minds. > > Let me try answer this bit by bit, here goes: > > > Now I have a better calibration on how you're thinking, so this may sound a little different. > > +++Oh, I hope so! > > > First, let's clarify a term you are using. Actually, two terms. What you call "images" are that, but they are in the form of "files". You can properly call them "image files". Each image is a file. A collection of files is put in a folder, so you have a folder of files. These are the terms as GC uses them. > > +++Okay sorry if I wasn't clear. yes, these are all tiff files, shot by a camera, of the pages of a book. All the right side was done first (i think) then all the left side. This was for ease of not having to move the book. > +++So, final output was 300 images/files of book pages, but out of order, since all the right side (again I think right was first) and all the left side. They were shot seperately, so once one side was done, it was put in a file, and the other side was done. That is how they ended up in two files. Left and Right. (and so numbers are not consequetive or correct per se. > > > In another post I saw you talk (isn't that a strange phrase? but it's true) about your images as named IMG_2345, IMG_2346, etc. Each image is a file with that name, of course. I have seen that format before, and I understand it. The camera names each image file as the concatenation of the prefix "IMG_" and an index number that must have started as 0001 when the camera was brand new, and will go back to 0001 after it reaches 9999. The camera always assigns such indices in numerical sequence, but only for new exposures, so if any exposure was deleted the sequence number for that frame would seem to be skipped when you look at what is left in the camera. When the book was photographed page by page, I would think it was done in sequence, so if NO frames were deleted in that process, all the odd-numbered files would be one side (left or right) and the even-numbered files would be the other side. You probably aren't that lucky with 300 exposures, but it's possible. If it were true, you could just put all the image files in one folder and they would automatically sort into what you want. > > +++yes, the camera numbers all the images as they are taken. There was not many reshots, so only perhaps one or two that need to be fixed. But, all the images in LEFT, are in the correct order. going from pg 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 etc. Of the book page numbers. RIght side is in correct order too, even though the numbering won't work to combine. > > > But you have what must be two folders of about 150 files each, which have somehow been segregated into left-hand pages and right-hand pages. And that was done probably because the image file numbers as they came out of the camera were not all neatly odd-numbered for left side and even-numbered for right side (or vice versa). They might even have had to go back and reshoot some pages which didn't turn out well enough the first time, so some of the final images may have index numbers that look out of sequence. You haven't talked about that yet, but it seems it must be part of your problem. So, in your reply, please tell me about the apparent order of the image files in the two folders, and how you know which is a left page and which is on the right. Is that determined only by the appearance of the imaged page? If so, somebody must have sorted through the images visually, and put left-looking pages in one folder and right-looking pages in the other folder. Given that the folders are correctly filled, what does a list of image filenames look like? > > +++As I said it was easy to seperate the two sides. Just did all the left side, put them in a file, finished all the right side, put them in another file. Simple to sort. And yes, only on looking at the image itself now can you see the page. The numbers are all keeping them in order, but make no sense for putting them two sides together and hoping they will sort properly. > your asking for file names ? Do you want file names after they were renamed or file names as they originally are ? > > Are the indices all either odd or even, with no apparent gaps in sequence? How are the pages, either left or right, put into correct numerical page sequence? Inquiring minds crave details like these. > > +++Okay, to save time here, the files with the new renames look like this: > LEFT: 001Balt, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book, 1347Book, 1349Book and so on, looks like all two by two like that all the way to 1663Book > > Right Side: 002Book, 1008Book, 1010Book, 1012Book, 1014Book all the way until 1332Book again two by two. > > > Now, in GC: > > There is no need to "Remove Existing Index", although part of your existing filename is an index. That option should be unchecked, to reduce any confusion. GC does not need to look at the existing filename and decide that part of it is an index to be removed. If you are using "Change Name", GC will gladly replace the entire name (including the numbers in it) with whatever you put in the little window, so those numbers disappear. > > > > Under the "Extension" Menu, you don't need to choose anything, I think, and the extension will remain what it was (you said it was "tif"). You do not want to change the extension at all, since that is sacred info. > > > > When you start the renaming process, the files are already in some order, probably numerical order of the numbers in the filename. GC will preserve exactly that sequence of files and give them the neat index numbers you specify. But it will do that only for the files that are selected in the folder. If you want to rename all the files in the folder you have to select all of them. > > > > I do not understand the results you got. Maybe you didn't completely spell out those results. It looks like there is no Bookname in the new names, unless you meant Bookname is to be implied as showing up either before or after the numbers you listed. You said the first result was 001, followed by 1341, 1343, 1345, which is very strange since the first result is three digits and the others are four, besides the fact that the four digits don't seem to have followed from 001 or even 0001. Then the Right file starts with a three digit 002 and proceeds normally except with an unwanted 1 at the front. This confuses me. Show me a list of the old filenames and the corresponding new filenames. > > > > This is a workable problem. Let's keep going here. > > > +++Okay, so looking at the first one from 001 to 1341 is only one in each folder ,I don't really care, as I could manually sort those. So that is not the big concern here, just to clear that up. > What is the concern is that I need two folders with the files named properly so they will sort correctly when they are thrown together. > I am just repeating what we already know I guess, but just wanted to make that clear. > So, here are some of the original file names: > Left: > IMG4719.tif > IMG4721.tif > IMG4722.tif > and so on until IMG4882.tif > > Right: > IMG4549.tif > IMG4550.tif > IMG4551.tif > IMG4552.tif > > As far as the settings I used, perhaps something threw it off. I added the name Book to be added after the number. > Frankly doesn't matter how many numbers it uses to sort them as long as we get a good sort by twos on left and by twos on right so they will come together correctly. So could be 5 digit even. > > I hope this answers your questions, if I've forgotten anything that might be important let me know. > Thanks for helping me sort this out! Really appreciate all your time. > ~Rita >

[Rita]

Hi Al, Yes, it was pretty amazing to all come together so quick like that. Saved us from going down another path, software, etc. The offset ? hmm, not sure, I checked: Change Index and Add Index Offset was 0 for the first run then Offset 1 for second run (right side) and I checked: Subtract Index from Offset (then it ran it back from 001) And another check was: Remove additional digits I think that helped it not to go from 001 to 1111 four digits. That's about all I can tell, but thankfully it's all working here. I'll be sure to post come my next obstacle. Thanks so much for your dedicated help! It would have never been sorted out so quick otherwise. ~Rita --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, Alfred J Treder <altreder@...> wrote: > > Rita, > > That's outstanding! Glad we made it through to the end. > > You haven't told me how that offset got in there, or why it was different between left and right folder trials. But you did find a way to get your job done, and apparently your copy of GC is not corrupted, so we don't have to go into software recovery mode. > > I'm happy to leave it there. > > Glad to help. > > Al > > " You only live once. But if you work it right, once is enough." > > -- Fred Allen > > > > On Feb 13, 2012, at 8:04 AM, Rita wrote: > > > Hi Al, > Wow, you really put all your time into this, I can't thank you enough! > Okay, your post last nite got me thinking (but too late for my brain) > But thought I'd tackle it this morning. soooooo, > > I think I solved the problem, with your help of course! > > (First my apologies for confusing terms like file and folder - often a offshot of my -off computer- in hand 'files' etc.) > > My settings are a little different in my GC version, so I took a screenshot of the settings, so I would be sure to use the right ones if the sort worked out well. > > A few more settings I think fixed this. One was using both: > Change Index and > Add Index > > and then; > Remove additional digits > > (that is what helped it generating all those extra numbers!) > > So, did the left side sort first, and they went 002, 004, 006, 008 and more. Voila ! > > Now I realized I have a few front pages, that are Roman Numeral so thought it best to remove these from both files. And then did a new sort to restart the numbers back to 002. > > Then, looking at the right side, I realized if I'm going to have the pages correspond such as 001, 002, 003 etc. I needed to have the right side to start with 001, 003, to offset the other file 002, 004. > So, almost renamed the left side, but then looked at the offset and seen if I put a '1' in there there is a button I can say > Subtract Index from Offset > and Voila, that did it again! Started them at 001. > > So, both files are now matching and I'm almost afraid to mix them incase! > I also, as a safety, added LLL to all the left files and RRR to all the Right pages this way when mixed at the very least I could tell which ones are which at least! > > Whew ! > > Now I also colored all the right files so when I dropped them in I can see them and just dropped them in and voila, they are all every second file, showing up easily now and properly mixed too. > > So, took a little bit of work to get it working but worked like a charm. Couldn't have done it without your help for sure! > > So thankful for helping me work though this. > > Thought you'd enjoy the end results. Inquiring minds and all. > > ~Rita > --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, Alfred J Treder <altreder@> wrote: > > > > Rita, > > > > We are definitely making progress. One minor thing: the images are files, you agree, but when you put a collection of files into something, that something is a folder, not a file. You actually CAN put files into one file, making a larger multipage file. I believe you can do that with TIFF and with PDF files. However, that is similar to gluing them into a scrapbook, because getting them individually out of the big scrapbook means effectively breaking the glue or cutting up the page, if you get my metaphor. So, I'm pretty sure you have a FOLDER of left page images (files) and another FOLDER of right page image files. That must be true, or you wouldn't be getting each image file renumbered (even if weirdly) by GC otherwise. > > > > I understand now how you got two folders of image files, left and right, and how they are in order within the folders but can't be meshed without renaming the files. Apparently all the repeat shots were done at the time of the original shoot rather than later, because you indicated some missing sequence numbers but no need to stick a later shot back in with earlier ones (other than the left/right problem). Makes it much simpler. > > > > Here is what you said about results of your first try: > > ********************************************************************************************************************************************** > > +++Okay, to save time here, the files with the new renames look like this: > > LEFT: 001Balt, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book, 1347Book, 1349Book and so on, looks like all two by two like that all the way to 1663Book > > > > Right Side: 002Book, 1008Book, 1010Book, 1012Book, 1014Book all the way until 1332Book again two by two. > > *********************************************************************************************************** > > I think you meant that LEFT starts with 001Book, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book. That seems to mean there is an offset of 1339 added to all the indices except the very first one, which is possible, I guess. There is a selectable offset in this function of GC, and the entry for it is right there with the entries for number of digits and how much to increment the index each iteration. You should have noticed any such number and wondered about it, so I wonder what that menu page showed you. If you entered any number for offset, it would be zero, I would think. Anyway, check that. > > > > The right side has a different apparent offset of 1004, as if you changed your entry for offset. Another weirdness is that you set the number of digits to three, and got three for the first file, but all the others have four. It's possible that GC will give you four digits as the result even if you pick 3, if it needs the room to express the result of adding the offset plus the index increment. So maybe the number of digits isn't really weird, and the only funny thing is the offset, which changes each time you do it. > > > > If you check your settings and find that there is a zero entry for offset, or a blank there, then somehow your current copy of GC is putting in an offset behind the scenes, so to speak. If that was happening, it wouldn't be so weird that the offset changes each time you run. That would be a malfunction of the software, and who knows what SHOULD come out. But fixing that is probably as simple as putting the preference files in the trash and then restarting GC. If that sounds weird, let me know, because it's a different topic that will take this conversation in an entirely different direction. > > > > Al > > > > " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. " > > > > -- Arthur C. Clarke > > > > On Feb 12, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Rita wrote: > > > > Hi Al, > > Okay inquiring minds. > > > > Let me try answer this bit by bit, here goes: > > > > > Now I have a better calibration on how you're thinking, so this may sound a little different. > > > > +++Oh, I hope so! > > > > > First, let's clarify a term you are using. Actually, two terms. What you call "images" are that, but they are in the form of "files". You can properly call them "image files". Each image is a file. A collection of files is put in a folder, so you have a folder of files. These are the terms as GC uses them. > > > > +++Okay sorry if I wasn't clear. yes, these are all tiff files, shot by a camera, of the pages of a book. All the right side was done first (i think) then all the left side. This was for ease of not having to move the book. > > +++So, final output was 300 images/files of book pages, but out of order, since all the right side (again I think right was first) and all the left side. They were shot seperately, so once one side was done, it was put in a file, and the other side was done. That is how they ended up in two files. Left and Right. (and so numbers are not consequetive or correct per se. > > > > > In another post I saw you talk (isn't that a strange phrase? but it's true) about your images as named IMG_2345, IMG_2346, etc. Each image is a file with that name, of course. I have seen that format before, and I understand it. The camera names each image file as the concatenation of the prefix "IMG_" and an index number that must have started as 0001 when the camera was brand new, and will go back to 0001 after it reaches 9999. The camera always assigns such indices in numerical sequence, but only for new exposures, so if any exposure was deleted the sequence number for that frame would seem to be skipped when you look at what is left in the camera. When the book was photographed page by page, I would think it was done in sequence, so if NO frames were deleted in that process, all the odd-numbered files would be one side (left or right) and the even-numbered files would be the other side. You probably aren't that lucky with 300 exposures, but it's possible. If it were true, you could just put all the image files in one folder and they would automatically sort into what you want. > > > > +++yes, the camera numbers all the images as they are taken. There was not many reshots, so only perhaps one or two that need to be fixed. But, all the images in LEFT, are in the correct order. going from pg 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 etc. Of the book page numbers. RIght side is in correct order too, even though the numbering won't work to combine. > > > > > But you have what must be two folders of about 150 files each, which have somehow been segregated into left-hand pages and right-hand pages. And that was done probably because the image file numbers as they came out of the camera were not all neatly odd-numbered for left side and even-numbered for right side (or vice versa). They might even have had to go back and reshoot some pages which didn't turn out well enough the first time, so some of the final images may have index numbers that look out of sequence. You haven't talked about that yet, but it seems it must be part of your problem. So, in your reply, please tell me about the apparent order of the image files in the two folders, and how you know which is a left page and which is on the right. Is that determined only by the appearance of the imaged page? If so, somebody must have sorted through the images visually, and put left-looking pages in one folder and right-looking pages in the other folder. Given that the folders are correctly filled, what does a list of image filenames look like? > > > > +++As I said it was easy to seperate the two sides. Just did all the left side, put them in a file, finished all the right side, put them in another file. Simple to sort. And yes, only on looking at the image itself now can you see the page. The numbers are all keeping them in order, but make no sense for putting them two sides together and hoping they will sort properly. > > your asking for file names ? Do you want file names after they were renamed or file names as they originally are ? > > > > Are the indices all either odd or even, with no apparent gaps in sequence? How are the pages, either left or right, put into correct numerical page sequence? Inquiring minds crave details like these. > > > > +++Okay, to save time here, the files with the new renames look like this: > > LEFT: 001Balt, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book, 1347Book, 1349Book and so on, looks like all two by two like that all the way to 1663Book > > > > Right Side: 002Book, 1008Book, 1010Book, 1012Book, 1014Book all the way until 1332Book again two by two. > > > > > Now, in GC: > > > There is no need to "Remove Existing Index", although part of your existing filename is an index. That option should be unchecked, to reduce any confusion. GC does not need to look at the existing filename and decide that part of it is an index to be removed. If you are using "Change Name", GC will gladly replace the entire name (including the numbers in it) with whatever you put in the little window, so those numbers disappear. > > > > > > Under the "Extension" Menu, you don't need to choose anything, I think, and the extension will remain what it was (you said it was "tif"). You do not want to change the extension at all, since that is sacred info. > > > > > > When you start the renaming process, the files are already in some order, probably numerical order of the numbers in the filename. GC will preserve exactly that sequence of files and give them the neat index numbers you specify. But it will do that only for the files that are selected in the folder. If you want to rename all the files in the folder you have to select all of them. > > > > > > I do not understand the results you got. Maybe you didn't completely spell out those results. It looks like there is no Bookname in the new names, unless you meant Bookname is to be implied as showing up either before or after the numbers you listed. You said the first result was 001, followed by 1341, 1343, 1345, which is very strange since the first result is three digits and the others are four, besides the fact that the four digits don't seem to have followed from 001 or even 0001. Then the Right file starts with a three digit 002 and proceeds normally except with an unwanted 1 at the front. This confuses me. Show me a list of the old filenames and the corresponding new filenames. > > > > > > This is a workable problem. Let's keep going here. > > > > > > +++Okay, so looking at the first one from 001 to 1341 is only one in each folder ,I don't really care, as I could manually sort those. So that is not the big concern here, just to clear that up. > > What is the concern is that I need two folders with the files named properly so they will sort correctly when they are thrown together. > > I am just repeating what we already know I guess, but just wanted to make that clear. > > So, here are some of the original file names: > > Left: > > IMG4719.tif > > IMG4721.tif > > IMG4722.tif > > and so on until IMG4882.tif > > > > Right: > > IMG4549.tif > > IMG4550.tif > > IMG4551.tif > > IMG4552.tif > > > > As far as the settings I used, perhaps something threw it off. I added the name Book to be added after the number. > > Frankly doesn't matter how many numbers it uses to sort them as long as we get a good sort by twos on left and by twos on right so they will come together correctly. So could be 5 digit even. > > > > I hope this answers your questions, if I've forgotten anything that might be important let me know. > > Thanks for helping me sort this out! Really appreciate all your time. > > ~Rita > > >

[dknodel@swbell.net]

Hi Rita, I have followed this exchange here.  I'm a somewhat experienced (and long-time) GC user and have found renaming and indexing complicated – mostly, as you found, because there so many options, you can do almost anything.  It takes me several tries sometimes to get what I want what with removing stuff before, after filenames, adding indices before, after and whatnot.  And because what you did last time 'sticks' you have to check all the tabs.DavidFrom: Rita <littleflowersfamily@yahoo.com>Reply-To: <gcmac@yahoogroups.com>Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:35:19 -0000To: <gcmac@yahoogroups.com>Subject: [gcmac] Re: Renaming and combining files ?   Hi Al, Yes, it was pretty amazing to all come together so quick like that. Saved us from going down another path, software, etc. The offset ? hmm, not sure, I checked: Change Index and Add Index Offset was 0 for the first run then Offset 1 for second run (right side) and I checked: Subtract Index from Offset (then it ran it back from 001) And another check was: Remove additional digits I think that helped it not to go from 001 to 1111 four digits. That's about all I can tell, but thankfully it's all working here. I'll be sure to post come my next obstacle. Thanks so much for your dedicated help! It would have never been sorted out so quick otherwise. ~Rita --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, Alfred J Treder <altreder@...> wrote: > > Rita, > > That's outstanding! Glad we made it through to the end. > > You haven't told me how that offset got in there, or why it was different between left and right folder trials. But you did find a way to get your job done, and apparently your copy of GC is not corrupted, so we don't have to go into software recovery mode. > > I'm happy to leave it there. > > Glad to help. > > Al > > " You only live once. But if you work it right, once is enough." > > -- Fred Allen > > > > On Feb 13, 2012, at 8:04 AM, Rita wrote: > > > Hi Al, > Wow, you really put all your time into this, I can't thank you enough! > Okay, your post last nite got me thinking (but too late for my brain) > But thought I'd tackle it this morning. soooooo, > > I think I solved the problem, with your help of course! > > (First my apologies for confusing terms like file and folder - often a offshot of my -off computer- in hand 'files' etc.) > > My settings are a little different in my GC version, so I took a screenshot of the settings, so I would be sure to use the right ones if the sort worked out well. > > A few more settings I think fixed this. One was using both: > Change Index and > Add Index > > and then; > Remove additional digits > > (that is what helped it generating all those extra numbers!) > > So, did the left side sort first, and they went 002, 004, 006, 008 and more. Voila ! > > Now I realized I have a few front pages, that are Roman Numeral so thought it best to remove these from both files. And then did a new sort to restart the numbers back to 002. > > Then, looking at the right side, I realized if I'm going to have the pages correspond such as 001, 002, 003 etc. I needed to have the right side to start with 001, 003, to offset the other file 002, 004. > So, almost renamed the left side, but then looked at the offset and seen if I put a '1' in there there is a button I can say > Subtract Index from Offset > and Voila, that did it again! Started them at 001. > > So, both files are now matching and I'm almost afraid to mix them incase! > I also, as a safety, added LLL to all the left files and RRR to all the Right pages this way when mixed at the very least I could tell which ones are which at least! > > Whew ! > > Now I also colored all the right files so when I dropped them in I can see them and just dropped them in and voila, they are all every second file, showing up easily now and properly mixed too. > > So, took a little bit of work to get it working but worked like a charm. Couldn't have done it without your help for sure! > > So thankful for helping me work though this. > > Thought you'd enjoy the end results. Inquiring minds and all. > > ~Rita > --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, Alfred J Treder <altreder@> wrote: > > > > Rita, > > > > We are definitely making progress. One minor thing: the images are files, you agree, but when you put a collection of files into something, that something is a folder, not a file. You actually CAN put files into one file, making a larger multipage file. I believe you can do that with TIFF and with PDF files. However, that is similar to gluing them into a scrapbook, because getting them individually out of the big scrapbook means effectively breaking the glue or cutting up the page, if you get my metaphor. So, I'm pretty sure you have a FOLDER of left page images (files) and another FOLDER of right page image files. That must be true, or you wouldn't be getting each image file renumbered (even if weirdly) by GC otherwise. > > > > I understand now how you got two folders of image files, left and right, and how they are in order within the folders but can't be meshed without renaming the files. Apparently all the repeat shots were done at the time of the original shoot rather than later, because you indicated some missing sequence numbers but no need to stick a later shot back in with earlier ones (other than the left/right problem). Makes it much simpler. > > > > Here is what you said about results of your first try: > > ********************************************************************************************************************************************** > > +++Okay, to save time here, the files with the new renames look like this: > > LEFT: 001Balt, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book, 1347Book, 1349Book and so on, looks like all two by two like that all the way to 1663Book > > > > Right Side: 002Book, 1008Book, 1010Book, 1012Book, 1014Book all the way until 1332Book again two by two. > > *********************************************************************************************************** > > I think you meant that LEFT starts with 001Book, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book. That seems to mean there is an offset of 1339 added to all the indices except the very first one, which is possible, I guess. There is a selectable offset in this function of GC, and the entry for it is right there with the entries for number of digits and how much to increment the index each iteration. You should have noticed any such number and wondered about it, so I wonder what that menu page showed you. If you entered any number for offset, it would be zero, I would think. Anyway, check that. > > > > The right side has a different apparent offset of 1004, as if you changed your entry for offset. Another weirdness is that you set the number of digits to three, and got three for the first file, but all the others have four. It's possible that GC will give you four digits as the result even if you pick 3, if it needs the room to express the result of adding the offset plus the index increment. So maybe the number of digits isn't really weird, and the only funny thing is the offset, which changes each time you do it. > > > > If you check your settings and find that there is a zero entry for offset, or a blank there, then somehow your current copy of GC is putting in an offset behind the scenes, so to speak. If that was happening, it wouldn't be so weird that the offset changes each time you run. That would be a malfunction of the software, and who knows what SHOULD come out. But fixing that is probably as simple as putting the preference files in the trash and then restarting GC. If that sounds weird, let me know, because it's a different topic that will take this conversation in an entirely different direction. > > > > Al > > > > " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. " > > > > -- Arthur C. Clarke > > > > On Feb 12, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Rita wrote: > > > > Hi Al, > > Okay inquiring minds. > > > > Let me try answer this bit by bit, here goes: > > > > > Now I have a better calibration on how you're thinking, so this may sound a little different. > > > > +++Oh, I hope so! > > > > > First, let's clarify a term you are using. Actually, two terms. What you call "images" are that, but they are in the form of "files". You can properly call them "image files". Each image is a file. A collection of files is put in a folder, so you have a folder of files. These are the terms as GC uses them. > > > > +++Okay sorry if I wasn't clear. yes, these are all tiff files, shot by a camera, of the pages of a book. All the right side was done first (i think) then all the left side. This was for ease of not having to move the book. > > +++So, final output was 300 images/files of book pages, but out of order, since all the right side (again I think right was first) and all the left side. They were shot seperately, so once one side was done, it was put in a file, and the other side was done. That is how they ended up in two files. Left and Right. (and so numbers are not consequetive or correct per se. > > > > > In another post I saw you talk (isn't that a strange phrase? but it's true) about your images as named IMG_2345, IMG_2346, etc. Each image is a file with that name, of course. I have seen that format before, and I understand it. The camera names each image file as the concatenation of the prefix "IMG_" and an index number that must have started as 0001 when the camera was brand new, and will go back to 0001 after it reaches 9999. The camera always assigns such indices in numerical sequence, but only for new exposures, so if any exposure was deleted the sequence number for that frame would seem to be skipped when you look at what is left in the camera. When the book was photographed page by page, I would think it was done in sequence, so if NO frames were deleted in that process, all the odd-numbered files would be one side (left or right) and the even-numbered files would be the other side. You probably aren't that lucky with 300 exposures, but it's possible. If it were true, you could just put all the image files in one folder and they would automatically sort into what you want. > > > > +++yes, the camera numbers all the images as they are taken. There was not many reshots, so only perhaps one or two that need to be fixed. But, all the images in LEFT, are in the correct order. going from pg 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 etc. Of the book page numbers. RIght side is in correct order too, even though the numbering won't work to combine. > > > > > But you have what must be two folders of about 150 files each, which have somehow been segregated into left-hand pages and right-hand pages. And that was done probably because the image file numbers as they came out of the camera were not all neatly odd-numbered for left side and even-numbered for right side (or vice versa). They might even have had to go back and reshoot some pages which didn't turn out well enough the first time, so some of the final images may have index numbers that look out of sequence. You haven't talked about that yet, but it seems it must be part of your problem. So, in your reply, please tell me about the apparent order of the image files in the two folders, and how you know which is a left page and which is on the right. Is that determined only by the appearance of the imaged page? If so, somebody must have sorted through the images visually, and put left-looking pages in one folder and right-looking pages in the other folder. Given that the folders are correctly filled, what does a list of image filenames look like? > > > > +++As I said it was easy to seperate the two sides. Just did all the left side, put them in a file, finished all the right side, put them in another file. Simple to sort. And yes, only on looking at the image itself now can you see the page. The numbers are all keeping them in order, but make no sense for putting them two sides together and hoping they will sort properly. > > your asking for file names ? Do you want file names after they were renamed or file names as they originally are ? > > > > Are the indices all either odd or even, with no apparent gaps in sequence? How are the pages, either left or right, put into correct numerical page sequence? Inquiring minds crave details like these. > > > > +++Okay, to save time here, the files with the new renames look like this: > > LEFT: 001Balt, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book, 1347Book, 1349Book and so on, looks like all two by two like that all the way to 1663Book > > > > Right Side: 002Book, 1008Book, 1010Book, 1012Book, 1014Book all the way until 1332Book again two by two. > > > > > Now, in GC: > > > There is no need to "Remove Existing Index", although part of your existing filename is an index. That option should be unchecked, to reduce any confusion. GC does not need to look at the existing filename and decide that part of it is an index to be removed. If you are using "Change Name", GC will gladly replace the entire name (including the numbers in it) with whatever you put in the little window, so those numbers disappear. > > > > > > Under the "Extension" Menu, you don't need to choose anything, I think, and the extension will remain what it was (you said it was "tif"). You do not want to change the extension at all, since that is sacred info. > > > > > > When you start the renaming process, the files are already in some order, probably numerical order of the numbers in the filename. GC will preserve exactly that sequence of files and give them the neat index numbers you specify. But it will do that only for the files that are selected in the folder. If you want to rename all the files in the folder you have to select all of them. > > > > > > I do not understand the results you got. Maybe you didn't completely spell out those results. It looks like there is no Bookname in the new names, unless you meant Bookname is to be implied as showing up either before or after the numbers you listed. You said the first result was 001, followed by 1341, 1343, 1345, which is very strange since the first result is three digits and the others are four, besides the fact that the four digits don't seem to have followed from 001 or even 0001. Then the Right file starts with a three digit 002 and proceeds normally except with an unwanted 1 at the front. This confuses me. Show me a list of the old filenames and the corresponding new filenames. > > > > > > This is a workable problem. Let's keep going here. > > > > > > +++Okay, so looking at the first one from 001 to 1341 is only one in each folder ,I don't really care, as I could manually sort those. So that is not the big concern here, just to clear that up. > > What is the concern is that I need two folders with the files named properly so they will sort correctly when they are thrown together. > > I am just repeating what we already know I guess, but just wanted to make that clear. > > So, here are some of the original file names: > > Left: > > IMG4719.tif > > IMG4721.tif > > IMG4722.tif > > and so on until IMG4882.tif > > > > Right: > > IMG4549.tif > > IMG4550.tif > > IMG4551.tif > > IMG4552.tif > > > > As far as the settings I used, perhaps something threw it off. I added the name Book to be added after the number. > > Frankly doesn't matter how many numbers it uses to sort them as long as we get a good sort by twos on left and by twos on right so they will come together correctly. So could be 5 digit even. > > > > I hope this answers your questions, if I've forgotten anything that might be important let me know. > > Thanks for helping me sort this out! Really appreciate all your time. > > ~Rita > > >

[Rita]

Well, I hope this thread was helpful. It was a little complicated to get it working, but once I played with a few options it made sense and was fixed. Thankfully! Now, if I can just remember what I did for the next time I need it, then it sure would save me some headbanging. Al was really helpful to get my problem resolved. I'll have to check these archives if I get lost again, as it will at least be a record of what we did to fix it. Hope that helps, ~Rita --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, "dknodel@..." <dknodel@...> wrote: > > Hi Rita, > I have followed this exchange here. I'm a somewhat experienced (and > long-time) GC user and have found renaming and indexing complicated ­ > mostly, as you found, because there so many options, you can do almost > anything. It takes me several tries sometimes to get what I want what with > removing stuff before, after filenames, adding indices before, after and > whatnot. And because what you did last time 'sticks' you have to check all > the tabs. > > David > > From: Rita <littleflowersfamily@...> > Reply-To: <gcmac@yahoogroups.com> > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:35:19 -0000 > To: <gcmac@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [gcmac] Re: Renaming and combining files ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Al, > > Yes, it was pretty amazing to all come together so quick like that. Saved > > us from going down another path, software, etc. > > > > The offset ? hmm, not sure, > > > > I checked: > > Change Index and > > Add Index > > > > Offset was 0 for the first run > > then Offset 1 for second run (right side) and I checked: > > Subtract Index from Offset > > (then it ran it back from 001) > > > > And another check was: > > Remove additional digits > > > > I think that helped it not to go from 001 to 1111 four digits. > > > > That's about all I can tell, but thankfully it's all working here. > > > > I'll be sure to post come my next obstacle. > > Thanks so much for your dedicated help! It would have never been sorted out so > > quick otherwise. > > > > ~Rita > > --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com <mailto:gcmac%40yahoogroups.com> , Alfred J > > Treder <altreder@> wrote: > >> > > >> > Rita, > >> > > >> > That's outstanding! Glad we made it through to the end. > >> > > >> > You haven't told me how that offset got in there, or why it was different > >> between left and right folder trials. But you did find a way to get your job > >> done, and apparently your copy of GC is not corrupted, so we don't have to go > >> into software recovery mode. > >> > > >> > I'm happy to leave it there. > >> > > >> > Glad to help. > >> > > >> > Al > >> > > >> > " You only live once. But if you work it right, once is enough." > >> > > >> > -- Fred Allen > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Feb 13, 2012, at 8:04 AM, Rita wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Hi Al, > >> > Wow, you really put all your time into this, I can't thank you enough! > >> > Okay, your post last nite got me thinking (but too late for my brain) > >> > But thought I'd tackle it this morning. soooooo, > >> > > >> > I think I solved the problem, with your help of course! > >> > > >> > (First my apologies for confusing terms like file and folder - often a > >> offshot of my -off computer- in hand 'files' etc.) > >> > > >> > My settings are a little different in my GC version, so I took a screenshot > >> of the settings, so I would be sure to use the right ones if the sort worked > >> out well. > >> > > >> > A few more settings I think fixed this. One was using both: > >> > Change Index and > >> > Add Index > >> > > >> > and then; > >> > Remove additional digits > >> > > >> > (that is what helped it generating all those extra numbers!) > >> > > >> > So, did the left side sort first, and they went 002, 004, 006, 008 and > >> more. Voila ! > >> > > >> > Now I realized I have a few front pages, that are Roman Numeral so thought > >> it best to remove these from both files. And then did a new sort to restart > >> the numbers back to 002. > >> > > >> > Then, looking at the right side, I realized if I'm going to have the pages > >> correspond such as 001, 002, 003 etc. I needed to have the right side to > >> start with 001, 003, to offset the other file 002, 004. > >> > So, almost renamed the left side, but then looked at the offset and seen if > >> I put a '1' in there there is a button I can say > >> > Subtract Index from Offset > >> > and Voila, that did it again! Started them at 001. > >> > > >> > So, both files are now matching and I'm almost afraid to mix them incase! > >> > I also, as a safety, added LLL to all the left files and RRR to all the > >> Right pages this way when mixed at the very least I could tell which ones are > >> which at least! > >> > > >> > Whew ! > >> > > >> > Now I also colored all the right files so when I dropped them in I can see > >> them and just dropped them in and voila, they are all every second file, > >> showing up easily now and properly mixed too. > >> > > >> > So, took a little bit of work to get it working but worked like a charm. > >> Couldn't have done it without your help for sure! > >> > > >> > So thankful for helping me work though this. > >> > > >> > Thought you'd enjoy the end results. Inquiring minds and all. > >> > > >> > ~Rita > >> > --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com <mailto:gcmac%40yahoogroups.com> , Alfred J > >> Treder <altreder@> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > Rita, > >>> > > > >>> > > We are definitely making progress. One minor thing: the images are > >>> files, you agree, but when you put a collection of files into something, > >>> that something is a folder, not a file. You actually CAN put files into one > >>> file, making a larger multipage file. I believe you can do that with TIFF > >>> and with PDF files. However, that is similar to gluing them into a > >>> scrapbook, because getting them individually out of the big scrapbook means > >>> effectively breaking the glue or cutting up the page, if you get my > >>> metaphor. So, I'm pretty sure you have a FOLDER of left page images (files) > >>> and another FOLDER of right page image files. That must be true, or you > >>> wouldn't be getting each image file renumbered (even if weirdly) by GC > >>> otherwise. > >>> > > > >>> > > I understand now how you got two folders of image files, left and right, > >>> and how they are in order within the folders but can't be meshed without > >>> renaming the files. Apparently all the repeat shots were done at the time of > >>> the original shoot rather than later, because you indicated some missing > >>> sequence numbers but no need to stick a later shot back in with earlier ones > >>> (other than the left/right problem). Makes it much simpler. > >>> > > > >>> > > Here is what you said about results of your first try: > >>> > > > >>> **************************************************************************** > >>> ****************************************************************** > >>> > > +++Okay, to save time here, the files with the new renames look like >>> > this: > >>> > > LEFT: 001Balt, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book, 1347Book, 1349Book and so > >>> on, looks like all two by two like that all the way to 1663Book > >>> > > > >>> > > Right Side: 002Book, 1008Book, 1010Book, 1012Book, 1014Book all the way > >>> until 1332Book again two by two. > >>> > > > >>> **************************************************************************** > >>> ******************************* > >>> > > I think you meant that LEFT starts with 001Book, 1341Book, 1343Book, > >>> 1345Book. That seems to mean there is an offset of 1339 added to all the > >>> indices except the very first one, which is possible, I guess. There is a > >>> selectable offset in this function of GC, and the entry for it is right > >>> there with the entries for number of digits and how much to increment the > >>> index each iteration. You should have noticed any such number and wondered > >>> about it, so I wonder what that menu page showed you. If you entered any > >>> number for offset, it would be zero, I would think. Anyway, check that. > >>> > > > >>> > > The right side has a different apparent offset of 1004, as if you > >>> changed your entry for offset. Another weirdness is that you set the number > >>> of digits to three, and got three for the first file, but all the others > >>> have four. It's possible that GC will give you four digits as the result > >>> even if you pick 3, if it needs the room to express the result of adding the > >>> offset plus the index increment. So maybe the number of digits isn't really > >>> weird, and the only funny thing is the offset, which changes each time you > >>> do it. > >>> > > > >>> > > If you check your settings and find that there is a zero entry for > >>> offset, or a blank there, then somehow your current copy of GC is putting in > >>> an offset behind the scenes, so to speak. If that was happening, it wouldn't > >>> be so weird that the offset changes each time you run. That would be a > >>> malfunction of the software, and who knows what SHOULD come out. But fixing > >>> that is probably as simple as putting the preference files in the trash and > >>> then restarting GC. If that sounds weird, let me know, because it's a > >>> different topic that will take this conversation in an entirely different > >>> direction. > >>> > > > >>> > > Al > >>> > > > >>> > > " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. > " > >>> > > > >>> > > -- Arthur C. Clarke > >>> > > > >>> > > On Feb 12, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Rita wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > Hi Al, > >>> > > Okay inquiring minds. > >>> > > > >>> > > Let me try answer this bit by bit, here goes: > >>> > > > >>>> > > > Now I have a better calibration on how you're thinking, so this may > >>>> sound a little different. > >>> > > > >>> > > +++Oh, I hope so! > >>> > > > >>>> > > > First, let's clarify a term you are using. Actually, two terms. What > >>>> you call "images" are that, but they are in the form of "files". You can > >>>> properly call them "image files". Each image is a file. A collection of > >>>> files is put in a folder, so you have a folder of files. These are the > >>>> terms as GC uses them. > >>> > > > >>> > > +++Okay sorry if I wasn't clear. yes, these are all tiff files, shot by > >>> a camera, of the pages of a book. All the right side was done first (i > >>> think) then all the left side. This was for ease of not having to move the > >>> book. > >>> > > +++So, final output was 300 images/files of book pages, but out of > >>> order, since all the right side (again I think right was first) and all the > >>> left side. They were shot seperately, so once one side was done, it was put > >>> in a file, and the other side was done. That is how they ended up in two > >>> files. Left and Right. (and so numbers are not consequetive or correct per > se. > >>> > > > >>>> > > > In another post I saw you talk (isn't that a strange phrase? but it's > >>>> true) about your images as named IMG_2345, IMG_2346, etc. Each image is a > >>>> file with that name, of course. I have seen that format before, and I > >>>> understand it. The camera names each image file as the concatenation of the > >>>> prefix "IMG_" and an index number that must have started as 0001 when the > >>>> camera was brand new, and will go back to 0001 after it reaches 9999. The > >>>> camera always assigns such indices in numerical sequence, but only for new > >>>> exposures, so if any exposure was deleted the sequence number for that > >>>> frame would seem to be skipped when you look at what is left in the camera. > >>>> When the book was photographed page by page, I would think it was done in > >>>> sequence, so if NO frames were deleted in that process, all the > >>>> odd-numbered files would be one side (left or right) and the even-numbered > >>>> files would be the other side. You probably aren't that lucky with 300 > >>>> exposures, but it's possible. If it were true, you could just put all the > >>>> image files in one folder and they would automatically sort into what you > >>>> want. > >>> > > > >>> > > +++yes, the camera numbers all the images as they are taken. There was > >>> not many reshots, so only perhaps one or two that need to be fixed. But, all > >>> the images in LEFT, are in the correct order. going from pg 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 > >>> etc. Of the book page numbers. RIght side is in correct order too, even > >>> though the numbering won't work to combine. > >>> > > > >>>> > > > But you have what must be two folders of about 150 files each, which > >>>> have somehow been segregated into left-hand pages and right-hand pages. And > >>>> that was done probably because the image file numbers as they came out of > >>>> the camera were not all neatly odd-numbered for left side and even-numbered > >>>> for right side (or vice versa). They might even have had to go back and > >>>> reshoot some pages which didn't turn out well enough the first time, so > >>>> some of the final images may have index numbers that look out of sequence. > >>>> You haven't talked about that yet, but it seems it must be part of your > >>>> problem. So, in your reply, please tell me about the apparent order of the > >>>> image files in the two folders, and how you know which is a left page and > >>>> which is on the right. Is that determined only by the appearance of the > >>>> imaged page? If so, somebody must have sorted through the images visually, > >>>> and put left-looking pages in one folder and right-looking pages in the > >>>> other folder. Given that the folders are correctly filled, what does a list > >>>> of image filenames look like? > >>> > > > >>> > > +++As I said it was easy to seperate the two sides. Just did all the > >>> left side, put them in a file, finished all the right side, put them in > >>> another file. Simple to sort. And yes, only on looking at the image itself > >>> now can you see the page. The numbers are all keeping them in order, but > >>> make no sense for putting them two sides together and hoping they will sort > >>> properly. > >>> > > your asking for file names ? Do you want file names after they were > >>> renamed or file names as they originally are ? > >>> > > > >>> > > Are the indices all either odd or even, with no apparent gaps in > >>> sequence? How are the pages, either left or right, put into correct > >>> numerical page sequence? Inquiring minds crave details like these. > >>> > > > >>> > > +++Okay, to save time here, the files with the new renames look like >>> > this: > >>> > > LEFT: 001Balt, 1341Book, 1343Book, 1345Book, 1347Book, 1349Book and so > >>> on, looks like all two by two like that all the way to 1663Book > >>> > > > >>> > > Right Side: 002Book, 1008Book, 1010Book, 1012Book, 1014Book all the way > >>> until 1332Book again two by two. > >>> > > > >>>> > > > Now, in GC: > >>>> > > > There is no need to "Remove Existing Index", although part of your > >>>> existing filename is an index. That option should be unchecked, to reduce > >>>> any confusion. GC does not need to look at the existing filename and decide > >>>> that part of it is an index to be removed. If you are using "Change Name", > >>>> GC will gladly replace the entire name (including the numbers in it) with > >>>> whatever you put in the little window, so those numbers disappear. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > Under the "Extension" Menu, you don't need to choose anything, I > >>>> think, and the extension will remain what it was (you said it was "tif"). > >>>> You do not want to change the extension at all, since that is sacred info. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > When you start the renaming process, the files are already in some > >>>> order, probably numerical order of the numbers in the filename. GC will > >>>> preserve exactly that sequence of files and give them the neat index > >>>> numbers you specify. But it will do that only for the files that are > >>>> selected in the folder. If you want to rename all the files in the folder > >>>> you have to select all of them. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > I do not understand the results you got. Maybe you didn't completely > >>>> spell out those results. It looks like there is no Bookname in the new > >>>> names, unless you meant Bookname is to be implied as showing up either > >>>> before or after the numbers you listed. You said the first result was 001, > >>>> followed by 1341, 1343, 1345, which is very strange since the first result > >>>> is three digits and the others are four, besides the fact that the four > >>>> digits don't seem to have followed from 001 or even 0001. Then the Right > >>>> file starts with a three digit 002 and proceeds normally except with an > >>>> unwanted 1 at the front. This confuses me. Show me a list of the old > >>>> filenames and the corresponding new filenames. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > This is a workable problem. Let's keep going here. > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > +++Okay, so looking at the first one from 001 to 1341 is only one in > >>> each folder ,I don't really care, as I could manually sort those. So that is > >>> not the big concern here, just to clear that up. > >>> > > What is the concern is that I need two folders with the files named > >>> properly so they will sort correctly when they are thrown together. > >>> > > I am just repeating what we already know I guess, but just wanted to > >>> make that clear. > >>> > > So, here are some of the original file names: > >>> > > Left: > >>> > > IMG4719.tif > >>> > > IMG4721.tif > >>> > > IMG4722.tif > >>> > > and so on until IMG4882.tif > >>> > > > >>> > > Right: > >>> > > IMG4549.tif > >>> > > IMG4550.tif > >>> > > IMG4551.tif > >>> > > IMG4552.tif > >>> > > > >>> > > As far as the settings I used, perhaps something threw it off. I added > >>> the name Book to be added after the number. > >>> > > Frankly doesn't matter how many numbers it uses to sort them as long as > >>> we get a good sort by twos on left and by twos on right so they will come > >>> together correctly. So could be 5 digit even. > >>> > > > >>> > > I hope this answers your questions, if I've forgotten anything that > >>> might be important let me know. > >>> > > Thanks for helping me sort this out! Really appreciate all your time. > >>> > > ~Rita > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >

[Lawrence Fagan]

Rita, I wanted to let you know that I was watching the exchange myself. I have learned a lot about GC from watching others' solutions to problems. I have my mail set up to dump all incoming GC mail into a GC folder. I have another subfolder in the GC folder where I put the emails that are instructional. So far I've saved 36 messages on various topics so that I can refer to them as needs be. I will add your last one which contains the entire exchange. Hats off to Alfred as well. Also, I think that was very smart of you to make screen shots of your settings. I do that a lot so I can refer to them at a later time. By the way, you are aware that command shift 4 allows you to take pictures of only the area that you with to save? I use that in conjunction with Sharpshooter to quickly file a series of pictures away. Very useful to file settings that you may change only occasionally. Take Care, Larry

[watcombeman]

Also, use the space bar after command-shift-4 to toggle between a marquee selection and a screen shot of the window you click on - very useful for things like preferences settings. I use SharpShooter too - so screen shots have meaningful names from the outset. John. --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, Lawrence Fagan <larrynotcurly@...> wrote: > > Rita, > > I wanted to let you know that I was watching the exchange myself. I have learned a lot about GC from watching others' solutions to problems. I have my mail set up to dump all incoming GC mail into a GC folder. I have another subfolder in the GC folder where I put the emails that are instructional. So far I've saved 36 messages on various topics so that I can refer to them as needs be. I will add your last one which contains the entire exchange. Hats off to Alfred as well. > > Also, I think that was very smart of you to make screen shots of your settings. I do that a lot so I can refer to them at a later time. By the way, you are aware that command shift 4 allows you to take pictures of only the area that you with to save? I use that in conjunction with Sharpshooter to quickly file a series of pictures away. Very useful to file settings that you may change only occasionally. > > Take Care, > > Larry >

[Rita]

Hey glad this thread was helpful to a few lurkers. I too watch some topics to learn of them. I have a new question coming up soon, so perhaps that will be of interest too. If not it is easily deleted after ! Yes, I love that shortcut too, Command shift 4. It took me forever to learn that shortcut by heart. Old minds don't remember as fast as when we were young I guess ! Take care, ~Rita --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, Lawrence Fagan <larrynotcurly@...> wrote: > > Rita, > > I wanted to let you know that I was watching the exchange myself. I have learned a lot about GC from watching others' solutions to problems. I have my mail set up to dump all incoming GC mail into a GC folder. I have another subfolder in the GC folder where I put the emails that are instructional. So far I've saved 36 messages on various topics so that I can refer to them as needs be. I will add your last one which contains the entire exchange. Hats off to Alfred as well. > > Also, I think that was very smart of you to make screen shots of your settings. I do that a lot so I can refer to them at a later time. By the way, you are aware that command shift 4 allows you to take pictures of only the area that you with to save? I use that in conjunction with Sharpshooter to quickly file a series of pictures away. Very useful to file settings that you may change only occasionally. > > Take Care, > > Larry >