#212581 - 08/04/2004 12:25
Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
|
addict
Registered: 24/08/1999
Posts: 564
Loc: TX
|
I finally got around to replacing my aging Canon Powershot S100 with a G5.
The old Zoombrowser was OK-ish but the new version sucks royally. To make life worse, the old version doesn't recognize the G5 and the new version ignores all network drives. Of course I store all my image libraries on my network.
so to my question....
What image transfer/library do you digi-photo guys out there use that is not tied to a camera manufacturer.
This is for XP by the way.
_________________________
==========================
the chewtoy for the dog of Life
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#212582 - 08/04/2004 12:28
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: ashmoore]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/12/2001
Posts: 5528
|
I just use a CF -> PCMCIA adapter and plug it straight in. No need for any special software.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212583 - 08/04/2004 12:39
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: tman]
|
addict
Registered: 24/08/1999
Posts: 564
Loc: TX
|
That is great for getting the images to the PC, but I am also interested in the library software. Zoombrowser does both.
The bits I like in ZB are:-
ZB auto tags the new files in the camera for transfer to PC
One button transfer.
Library display in pre V4 versions
ZB also handles the orientation correctly, XP just ignores it.
I like the fact that it treats files and folders as an integrated, indexed library with pictures. With XP its just files and folders.
_________________________
==========================
the chewtoy for the dog of Life
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212584 - 08/04/2004 12:40
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: ashmoore]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Heh, we discussed this at great length a while ago. Some people liked some of the browser alternatives, I didn't like any of them. I'll never, ever understand why every one of these devices couldn't at least give you the option of having it show up as a mass storage device. I think they feel that after all this effort they've put into creating this software, all their customers must pay by being forced to use it. It just doesn't make any sense.
Anyway, I also use a card reader. I plan on getting a card reader bay that goes with my case once I can find it for sale in stores 
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212585 - 08/04/2004 12:44
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: Dignan]
|
addict
Registered: 24/08/1999
Posts: 564
Loc: TX
|
I suppose the good bit is that the G5 does show up in XP as a Canon G5 and is accessible as a drive.
I still hate the std XP image folder view though 
_________________________
==========================
the chewtoy for the dog of Life
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212586 - 08/04/2004 12:45
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: ashmoore]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
I, on the other hand, hate that kind of stuff. I don't want this forced software doing all that for me. All I do with my pictures is organize them into folders. That's all. I want them to be in their original form for any future use.
My girlfriend never installed the software for her Canon, and I did kinda like how she could just connect the USB cable, and the OS would automatically take the new pictures and put them in a new folder of their own. But that still wouldn't work for me. What if the new pictures span two events that I want in seperate folders? Then I have to seperate them myself anyway. And I still have to name the folders.
No way, I want control over this stuff. I don't want programs doing it for me.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212587 - 08/04/2004 12:47
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: ashmoore]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
I suppose the good bit is that the G5 does show up in XP as a Canon G5 and is accessible as a drive. Really? I wonder why the switch... And I wonder if there's software that will allow me to do the same with my G2.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212588 - 08/04/2004 13:07
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: ashmoore]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Count me in as one of those persons who prefers to use a cheap CF reader instead of ZoomBrowser or BreezeBrowser or BloatBrowser or whatever.
The "long discussion" linked above doesn't have me updating that I finally did throw out ZoomBrowser and got a $15.00 flash reader and never looked back.
It's much much nicer to just pop the card in and open it up in Windows Explorer for file management. Having to run a piece of proprietary management software for this task is just ludicrous.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212589 - 08/04/2004 13:14
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: Dignan]
|
addict
Registered: 24/08/1999
Posts: 564
Loc: TX
|
Funny,
I have been re-reading that other thread and have got my requirements down.
I am thinking that BreezeBrowser maybe what I need.
_________________________
==========================
the chewtoy for the dog of Life
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212590 - 08/04/2004 13:17
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Ah, I was wondering what you ended up doing. Yeah, it's so simple. Plus you can find any number of programs to do post-transfer stuff to your files.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212591 - 08/04/2004 13:28
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: tfabris]
|
addict
Registered: 24/08/1999
Posts: 564
Loc: TX
|
Fortunately, the G5 allows me to just copy the files direct with no software. Just as well given that my old S100 ZB fails to see the G5 !
I hate using explorer though. It just doesn't give me all the information from the image files. The XP camera/image wizard is a joke that just takes up disk space, the image print wizard is the same.
I'll check out Breeze at home tonight. The web page builder looks interesting.
_________________________
==========================
the chewtoy for the dog of Life
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212592 - 08/04/2004 13:33
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: Dignan]
|
addict
Registered: 24/08/1999
Posts: 564
Loc: TX
|
Yeah, I hate the automatic download. I tend to categorize by year/month plus specific categories.
I guess I like the catalog style apps because they expose so much more of the EXIF info and can act on it.
The latest breezebrowser give you all of the histogram and can edit it. It also does the RAW conversions.
The G5 also lets you voice tag images and cool stuff like that. Unfortunately, the XP camaera wizard junks all that. DOH!
There is an ideal solution out there somewhere, I just know it.
_________________________
==========================
the chewtoy for the dog of Life
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212593 - 08/04/2004 14:00
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
I'll never, ever understand why every one of these devices couldn't at least give you the option of having it show up as a mass storage device. I think they feel that after all this effort they've put into creating this software, all their customers must pay by being forced to use it. It just doesn't make any sense. I guess the same goes for those nitwits who make MP3 players...
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212594 - 08/04/2004 14:12
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Well nothing personal, but yeah Although I'm not calling you nitwits
emplode is different, though. It's a big step up from explorer and all very straightforward. But Zoombrowser, Real, Musicmatch, and all these others are simply no good. Sorry
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212595 - 08/04/2004 14:26
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
With the empeg/karma products, there is a clear advantage to forcing you through their database protocol. We get things like nearly-instantaneous booting, hierarchical playlists, instant access to all song search and catalog functions, etc.
With the Canon digital cameras, the files are already stored in a PC-readable format and all we care about are retrieving those files. So it's different to want mass-storage-class access to a digital camera.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212596 - 08/04/2004 14:57
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: ashmoore]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/07/2001
Posts: 721
Loc: Boston, MA USA
|
Since everyone here seems hell-bent on converting you to just use a card reader and not give you any software advice...
I kinda like Picasa
It was mentioned briefly before here and here
I used to like the old version of zoombrowser too and then they made the crappy new version. What's up with that?
_________________________
---------
//matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212597 - 08/04/2004 15:18
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
With the empeg/karma products, there is a clear advantage to forcing you through their database protocol. We get things like nearly-instantaneous booting, hierarchical playlists, instant access to all song search and catalog functions, etc. ????
None of those things, at least on Empeg or Karma, has anything to do with the choice between mass-storage class and proprietary protocol. The proprietary protocol is there for legal reasons only.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212598 - 08/04/2004 15:32
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
I didn't know that. I thought that in order for the database to work properly, things had to be FIDs instead of willy-nilly randomly-named files.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212599 - 08/04/2004 15:36
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
But you could have a mass-storage interface. There's nothing to say that what's presented via mass-storage has to be how it's laid out on the device itself. Of course, the obvious drawback is that Windows would have no good way to have tracks be in multiple playlists. Or maybe it could have understood both hard links, soft links, and Windows shortcuts and presented them properly to whatever host-type it was attached to.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212600 - 08/04/2004 15:37
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: ithoughti]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I really use Gallery for the organization being talked about, but I've installed cam2pc as an interface for my wife. I think it does organizational stuff, too.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212601 - 09/04/2004 01:23
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
The Ipod has all the things you mention (well, as many of them as Karma officially does) and it's mass-storage class.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212602 - 09/04/2004 01:32
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Of course, the obvious drawback is that Windows would have no good way to have tracks be in multiple playlists. Or maybe it could have understood both hard links, soft links, and Windows shortcuts and presented them properly to whatever host-type it was attached to. You could always use playlist files (.m3u or whatever) instead of directories. I don't know what actually happens at the structure level when you mount a FAT filesystem under Unix and make a symlink on it -- I bet it doesn't make a .lnk file -- but yes, it'd certainly be helpful for a mass-storage player to understand whatever it is.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212603 - 09/04/2004 02:27
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Count me in as one of those persons who prefers to use a cheap CF reader instead of ZoomBrowser or BreezeBrowser or BloatBrowser or whatever.
You can use BreezeBrowser/Downloader with your CF reader, it isn't an either/or situation.
Having to run a piece of proprietary management software for this task is just ludicrous.
It would be if the only think Downloader did was copy the files, but it does more that that. If I didn't use downloader pro I would have to do all the following tasks manually or with another tool:
- losslessly rotate all the jpegs based on the orientation sensor info from the camera
- set all the files created dates to the image capture time from the EXIF data
- create a text file for each image with all the EXIF data
- set the DPI size to something sane
- sort all the images into date named folders (and yes I sometimes have to then separate them out more than that, but at least it does most of the work for me)
Obviously if you don't need to do these tasks when transferring images from your CF card then you don't need something like Downloader. If I didn't use Downloader then I would have to write something that did what Downloader does for me, because I'm not going back to doing everything by hand.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212604 - 09/04/2004 03:04
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/12/2001
Posts: 5528
|
I copy the images to my computer and then use jhead and jpegtran for the auto rotating and setting timestamps. I usually organise by event so I don't need the sorting part. jhead can save all the EXIF data to a text file if you wish as well.
I keep the full sized originals on my computer and use irfanview to create 640x480 copies for my gallery and then upload those using FTP.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212605 - 09/04/2004 08:12
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: ithoughti]
|
addict
Registered: 24/08/1999
Posts: 564
Loc: TX
|
Thanks Matt!
You are correct, I never had a problem with getting the images into the PC.
All I wanted to replace the browser itself
BreezeBrowser does look good with the auto web page generation. That way I can auto save my nice new photo pages to my webserver.
_________________________
==========================
the chewtoy for the dog of Life
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212606 - 09/04/2004 08:34
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Having to run a piece of proprietary management software for this task is just ludicrous.
It would be if the only think Downloader did was copy the files, but it does more that that. If I didn't use downloader pro I would have to do all the following tasks manually or with another tool:
But that's not what he's saying. We're talking (at least I was) about simply getting the files off the card. So the program can do other things, that's great, but that's not the point. I want the files off my card and into folders based on a method I choose. These other programs are forcing me into using a method of their choosing.
But I appologize. I wasn't aware that ashmoore wanted a Zoombrowser replacement program, not replacement solution. He asked for an "image transfer/library," and I believe Tony and I were offering our opinions and suggestions on half of that. There isn't anything saying you can't put the files on your machine, then use another program for viewing or whatever you want. That is what Trevor is suggesting and I think his method is the best and gives you the greatest amount of control.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212607 - 09/04/2004 08:52
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: andy]
|
addict
Registered: 24/08/1999
Posts: 564
Loc: TX
|
I especially like the lossless orientation based on the camera tag. XP happily warns me that I will lose image data if I rotate the image, I can't see how that could ever be good.
I have just been reading up on cam2pc, it seems to have similar functionality to breeze. I guess I will have to try both.
_________________________
==========================
the chewtoy for the dog of Life
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212608 - 09/04/2004 09:14
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: Dignan]
|
addict
Registered: 24/08/1999
Posts: 564
Loc: TX
|
I gotta add that the clearness of most of my posts has never their strong point!!!
_________________________
==========================
the chewtoy for the dog of Life
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212609 - 09/04/2004 09:41
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: ashmoore]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Not a problem. I guess I was just venting because I dislike that Zoombrowser program so much. I have a way I like to do this, you have a way you like to do this, and I just wish the manufacturers would give us a choice is all. Why can you use BreezeBrowser with these cameras and we can simply mount them as mass storage devices? All I'm asking for is a choice of how I use this device I paid $700 for. Doesn't seem outrageous to me!
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#212610 - 09/04/2004 09:53
Re: Canon ZoomBrowser replacement??
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
You could always use playlist files (.m3u or whatever) instead of directories. That's a good point, and while I won't say it isn't doable, it does increase the complexity of the system quite a bit. Would you upload all the files to their initial proper locations and then add .m3u files? That'd mean that you'd have to manually create files with the correct references, which could easily be different than the references on the initial filesystem. It'd probably be easier for the manufacturer to provide a playlist creator app. And what would happen when you moved the original file? I guess that the player would have already abstracted it out to change those initial uploads to putting the data in a filestore and creating playlists based on where it was "uploaded" to. Maybe it could detect the upload of a duplicate file and create a playlist entry based on that. But I don't know if it would be possible for a mass-storage device to do a non-error abort of a file transfer, which would be the best way to do that, so as to not have to upload an entire file that's going to get thrown away and replaced with a link. I don't know what actually happens at the structure level when you mount a FAT filesystem under Unix and make a symlink on it It doesn't let you do it at all: ln: creating symbolic link `test.link' to `system.1st': Operation not permitted at least under Linux.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index