Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

NY wrote:
"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
news
I don't know if all cameras and phones get it right, but our cameras
[1] do get it right. They do not only sense the orientation of the
camera, but also the movement. So I can turn the camera 90 degrees
clockwise or 90 degrees counter-clockwise and it will detect correct
portrait mode in both cases. (I've not been so silly to hold it
upside-down for landscape, but it will probably get that right as well.)

My problem is that whereas there is an obvious right way up for the phone in
portrait mode (with the phone name at the bottom and the writing the correct
way up!), there's no right and wrong way once you rotate the phone into
landscape. I can never remember which way is right (no rotation needed) and
which is wrong (180 degree rotation needed). Inevitable if I've taken
various photos, some will be one way and some will be the other. It would be
easier if the screen showed some text that did not rotate so it was always
the correct way up, so I'd be consistent.

Sorry, but I don't get your problem. AFAICT, it's the same situation
as the upside-down real camera. I just checked on my smartphone and as I
expected, it also gets this right. I.e. for both speaker-right/
microphone-left and speaker-left/microphone-right, a landscape picture
has the correct orientation, i.e. 'ground' at the bottom, 'sky' at the
top. That is, because - as I mentioned - the device doesn't only sense
orientation, but also movement. Perhaps you can fool it by quick or/and
akward movements, but in normal use they haven't failed me.

[...]

nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

I don't know if all cameras and phones get it right, but our cameras
[1] do get it right. They do not only sense the orientation of the
camera, but also the movement. So I can turn the camera 90 degrees
clockwise or 90 degrees counter-clockwise and it will detect correct
portrait mode in both cases. (I've not been so silly to hold it
upside-down for landscape, but it will probably get that right as well.)

it's not silly and it will.

consider a scenario with a tripod a low vantage point:
http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17989998-lg.jpg
http://ronmart.smugmug.com/Blog/Revi...tzo-GT1541-4-M.
jpg

Fair enough. But I *did* say "hold", not "mount", didn't I!? :-)

On 08/11/2018 01:15 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 8/12/2018 1:10 AM, nospam wrote:

I don't know much about photography films.

clearly.

And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!

yep.

But isn't film molecular level?

everything is.

Is your claim based on traditional size of film, which is 135?

But why can't we use a bigger film then? Should we always compare 135
film against CMOS sensors of different size?


A bit of possibly useful discussion:

https://electrooptical.net/News/photographic-film/

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
https://hobbs-eo.com

"Wolf K" wrote

| https://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/EXIF.html
| 0x0112 Orientation int16u IFD0
|
| 1 = Horizontal (normal)
| 2 = Mirror horizontal
| 3 = Rotate 180
| 4 = Mirror vertical
| 5 = Mirror horizontal and rotate 270 CW
| 6 = Rotate 90 CW
| 7 = Mirror horizontal and rotate 90 CW
| 8 = Rotate 270 CW
|
|
| Mirror?, Oh, I see, that's the selfie orientation.
|
I've never seen that. The MIT EXIF docs I have
list only 1,3,6,8,9 (undefined). To define a mirror
image is to give editing instructions.

| OK, so why do pictures sent from cellphones sometimes show up here
| incorrectly oriented?
|

One reason would be if your viewing
software is not set to read Orientation and
display accordingly. Another reason would
be if there's no EXIF data, or no Orientation,
in the header. A third would be what I was
describing: Someone sent a picture
of a sheet of paper, which had them holding
the camera face-down. That would mean that
the sensors are deciding the orientation based
on a tiny variable. Whichever side of the
phone happens to be slightly higher than the
plane of the horizontal would be sensed as
being the top. As it turned out, that was the
left side of the page.

EXIF is a standard, but it's not a required part
of a JPG file. IPTC is also a standard, but more
rare than EXIF. And there's JFIF, which can store
a limited amount of data and a thumbnail. But
any thumbnail is usually in EXIF.... JPG is just a
mess.

On top of all that, most people don't know much
about file formats. They know to click and send.
Sometimes they know to pick an image size. My
sister in law recently sent a photo of 7 family
members at a family get-together taken with her
iPhone. I'm still trying to explain to her that
320 x 240 is not a useful size for a picture of 7
people. . I expect she probably never saw the
image except on her phone and never thought
about the size.

Then there are people like nospam who know
something about photography but don't know
much about the tech side of things. They tend
to equate JPG with photo and think the EXIF data
is both built in and relatively immutable, neither
of which is true.

On 08/12/2018 05:09 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:

[snip]

I betÂ* there are many film cameras that are way way better than my first
ever webcam - 320x240 resolution fixed focus. Looked horrible in
anything except bright sunlight. Luckily is was cheap so I wasn't that
bothered. Nevertheless IT WAS DIGITAL.

I had one with that resolution. Apparently there ware a lot of those
sensors available, since they were used in camcorders. Still pictures
really need better.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more
widespread is the decline of religious belief." -- Sigmund Freud

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
I do the same. I've never had occasion to even try
so-called lossless rotation or cropping of a JPG. If I
care about the image that much then I'll save it, clean
it up in PSP, then save it out as something non-lossy,
usually BMP or TIF. JPG is a wretched container. Its

If the image was in JPG when you received it, then you don't _lose_
anything by doing anything "lossless" to it. [See later post for
discussion of that.] Whatever you think of the format.

only good qualities are very small image size, cross-
platform browser support, and no royalties. That makes
it good for webpages, but it never should have been
a camera format in the first place.

I presume it became so when memory cards were very small, and had become
established when they became bigger - or, the problem never went away
because "megapixel envy" means sensor size _in pixels_ kept growing
(roughly keeping pace with card capacity). [My favourite camera has a
3.2 MP sensor - and I usually have it set to 1.]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| https://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/EXIF.html
| 0x0112 Orientation int16u IFD0
|
| 1 = Horizontal (normal)
| 2 = Mirror horizontal
| 3 = Rotate 180
| 4 = Mirror vertical
| 5 = Mirror horizontal and rotate 270 CW
| 6 = Rotate 90 CW
| 7 = Mirror horizontal and rotate 90 CW
| 8 = Rotate 270 CW
|
|
| Mirror?, Oh, I see, that's the selfie orientation.
|
I've never seen that. The MIT EXIF docs I have
list only 1,3,6,8,9 (undefined).

then whatever you've seen is incomplete, although mirroring is rarely
used, so it's not a big deal that it was omitted.

To define a mirror
image is to give editing instructions.

nope. it's a simple transform.

In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
[]
I've just checked and IrfanView's "JPEG lossless rotate" *does* move
the pixels around (i.e. does a real/'physical' rotate) and hence does
*not* set "that flag".

Thanks for doing that, saves me having to (-:! I had the feeling that it
did.


AFAICT, the "lossless" is not quite true, because in my test the
rotated file is slightly smaller that the original (626,860 versus
654,241 bytes (yes, it's a small/old JPEG). Probably the (non-)lossless
depends on which settings one uses in the 'JPG -Lossless
transformations' popup. For example, should 'Optimize JPG file' be on or
off?

I hadn't noticed that setting. Or, it could be that the A by B image
gives a different filesize, even without losing any information, than
the B by A image. [That could be checked by converting it back!] I also
(since I hadn't noticed its presence!) don't know what the "optimise"
setting means: maybe it can improve the compression without losing
anything? Again, some tests might prove something!

Anyway, messing with the pixels is not what I'm looking for (in this
case in IrfanView). I'm looking for a logical/pseudo rotate which just
sets the bits in the EXIF part to the correct orientation. (If needed,)
I normally do that with the software of my previous camera, OLYMPUS
Viewer 3.

Yes, you want an EXIF editor, or at least one that edits that field.
(I've just tried the one I've got, and it can _show_ the orientation
field, but I'm not sure whether I can _change_ it. But it's so long
since I've used it - Exifer, by Friedemann Schmitt - from 2002! - that I
can't really remember how to use it. I'm surprised it even runs on 7.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| If the image was in JPG when you received it, then you don't _lose_
| anything by doing anything "lossless" to it. [See later post for
| discussion of that.]

Almost. There are restrictions concerning the image
size because the data is stored in compressed blocks.
The blocks can be turned and restacked without
decompressing. But it only works perfectly if the image
dimensions are a multiple of block size.

Personally I don't think it's worth bothering with, but
if it's not a great image anyway, and you just want to
store a cellphone pic for looking at later, then I guess
a lossless rotation is slightly better than rotate/resave.

| only good qualities are very small image size, cross-
| platform browser support, and no royalties. That makes
| it good for webpages, but it never should have been
| a camera format in the first place.
|
| I presume it became so when memory cards were very small, and had become
| established when they became bigger - or, the problem never went away
| because "megapixel envy" means sensor size _in pixels_ kept growing
| (roughly keeping pace with card capacity). [My favourite camera has a
| 3.2 MP sensor - and I usually have it set to 1.]
|
That could play into it, but I expect the other
two factors were more important: It's royalty-free
and widely supported. GIFs were subject to royalties
in the 90s. (And they're only 256-color.) PNGs were
not widely supported until relatively recently. BMP is
uncompressed and Windows-specific. So up into the
2000s there actually wasn't any other 24-bit image
format that could be easily shared. And JPGs became
ubiquitous on the Web.

TIF -- compressed BMPs -- would have been the
obvious choice, but few people used them aside from
graphic artists. They just weren't known.

Some cameras can save as TIF and most good ones
can save as RAW. I think iPhones can even shoot RAW
now. But most people are not really editing photos.
They're just clicking their iPhone, emailing, posting
to Facebook....

What surprises me is that even people who work on
photos often either don't care or don't understand
enough to get away from JPG.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
I do the same. I've never had occasion to even try
so-called lossless rotation or cropping of a JPG. If I
care about the image that much then I'll save it, clean
it up in PSP, then save it out as something non-lossy,
usually BMP or TIF. JPG is a wretched container. Its

If the image was in JPG when you received it, then you don't _lose_
anything by doing anything "lossless" to it. [See later post for
discussion of that.] Whatever you think of the format.

only good qualities are very small image size, cross-
platform browser support, and no royalties. That makes
it good for webpages, but it never should have been
a camera format in the first place.

I presume it became so when memory cards were very small, and had become
established when they became bigger - or, the problem never went away
because "megapixel envy" means sensor size _in pixels_ kept growing
(roughly keeping pace with card capacity). [My favourite camera has a
3.2 MP sensor - and I usually have it set to 1.]


It looks like megapixel envy never stopped.

https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content...cmos_sensor.do

120 megapixel at 9.5FPS. And that's the tiny sensor.

Paul

In article , Paul
wrote:

It looks like megapixel envy never stopped.


https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content...mat_cmos_senso
r.do

120 megapixel at 9.5FPS. And that's the tiny sensor.

https://fstoppers.com/originals/100-...mera-captures-
15-gigapixels-210631
Just when you thought that your camera has all of the resolving power
you will ever need with a 50- or even a 100-megapixel sensor, a new
king of the hill has arrived on the scene and the comparison to what
you have isn¹t even close. With 1.5 billion pixels of CCD goodness,
this camera smashes the ceiling on resolution and is sure to be the
envy of anyone who cares about such things.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

TIF -- compressed BMPs -- would have been the
obvious choice, but few people used them aside from
graphic artists. They just weren't known.

neither is a good choice, which is why graphic artists do not regularly
use either of them.

they mainly use psd (photoshop), ai (illustrator) and pdf, perhaps also
jpg and/or png for final output.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| If the image was in JPG when you received it, then you don't _lose_
| anything by doing anything "lossless" to it. [See later post for
| discussion of that.]

Almost. There are restrictions concerning the image
size because the data is stored in compressed blocks.
The blocks can be turned and restacked without
decompressing. But it only works perfectly if the image
dimensions are a multiple of block size.

Yes. I think the block size is 16 pixels. Certainly the "lossless JPEG
crop" in IrfanView will only crop to the next (above) block boundary. I
presume all the standard resolutions (and any unusual ones produced by
cameras, at least ones that use JPEG) are an integral multiple of the
block size.

Personally I don't think it's worth bothering with, but
if it's not a great image anyway, and you just want to
store a cellphone pic for looking at later, then I guess
a lossless rotation is slightly better than rotate/resave.

If the only version you _have_ is .jpg - i. e., that's how you received
it (e. g. from someone else) - then you don't _lose_ anything by the
losslessly-rotated version still being .jpg.

| only good qualities are very small image size, cross-
| platform browser support, and no royalties. That makes

"What did the Romans ever do for us?" (-:

| it good for webpages, but it never should have been
| a camera format in the first place.
|
| I presume it became so when memory cards were very small, and had become
| established when they became bigger - or, the problem never went away
| because "megapixel envy" means sensor size _in pixels_ kept growing
| (roughly keeping pace with card capacity). [My favourite camera has a
| 3.2 MP sensor - and I usually have it set to 1.]
|
That could play into it, but I expect the other
two factors were more important: It's royalty-free
and widely supported. GIFs were subject to royalties
in the 90s. (And they're only 256-color.)
Though the 256 colours can, I'm pretty sure, be 24 bit. GIF's intrinsic
losslessness, once the colour reduction has been done, has always
appealed to me. (It's great for logos and e. g. cartoons.)
PNGs were
not widely supported until relatively recently. BMP is
uncompressed and Windows-specific. So up into the

(So basically a RAW format.)

2000s there actually wasn't any other 24-bit image
format that could be easily shared. And JPGs became
ubiquitous on the Web.

TIF -- compressed BMPs -- would have been the
obvious choice, but few people used them aside from
graphic artists. They just weren't known.

And some scanner drivers. It became quite popular, that and .PDF,
especially among scanners aimed at corporate rather than home use.

Some cameras can save as TIF and most good ones
can save as RAW. I think iPhones can even shoot RAW
now. But most people are not really editing photos.
They're just clicking their iPhone, emailing, posting
to Facebook....

And stills are probably becoming old hat to them anyway - they'll be
using videos (all in VVS, of course) by default, by now.

What surprises me is that even people who work on
photos often either don't care or don't understand
enough to get away from JPG.

I guess they think - and have found - that if there are enough
megapixels, most of their customers are happy with (and maybe even
_want_) JPEG.

[I had the initials first, by the way - before the joint picture
(experts) group was a twinkle in anyone's eye!]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| BMP is
| uncompressed and Windows-specific. So up into the
|
| (So basically a RAW format.)
|
RAW refers to any one of a number of proprietary
formats that conserve data recorded by the camera.
It holds much more data than the standard file formats.
Those formats (PNG, GIF, JPG, TIF) are just different
kinds of packages for a BMP. They all decompress
to bitmaps -- rectangular grids of numeric pixel values.

I find RAW fascinating to work with because one can
draw so much out. For instance, if the image is
underexposed it can be brightened to bring out the
colors in the image. With a bitmap you can't do that.
If you brighten it you just make each pixel lighter.
Each point in the image is already a fixed color value.

So with RAW you can pick the best image available
from the data before reducing it to a bitmap.

| They're just clicking their iPhone, emailing, posting
| to Facebook....
|
| And stills are probably becoming old hat to them anyway - they'll be
| using videos (all in VVS, of course) by default, by now.

I guess that's probably true. Last night I saw a few
minutes of some golf tournament on TV. The TV camera
was behind the crowd at one point, filming the spectators.
It looked like about 1 in 2 were holding up phones. I wondered
whether they were shooting or filming. I figured they must be
filming video because 1) they kept their phones held aloft
and 2) they had no way to see the viewfinder. I suppose
they were all trying to get their own mini-drama on film,
making a short movie of a putt.
They were all busy filming what they imagined was
happening while they were diddling their phones.

It reminds me of the movie Being There. Peter Sellers's
character, Chauncy Gardener, has never been in the
outside world and his main experience of life is through
TV. When someone acts unpleasantly he takes out
his TV remote and tries to switch the station. Likewise,
for people with their cellphones, often, the most real things
in the world around them are the things they film. Other
people are only surreal phatasms until they've been
mp4-ed. Only then can they be experienced "directly"
and shared with one's co-witnesses, thereby confirming
their reality.

"Paul" wrote

| It looks like megapixel envy never stopped.
|
|
https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content...cmos_sensor.do
|
| 120 megapixel at 9.5FPS. And that's the tiny sensor.
|

That doesn't seem so crazy to me. If you wanted
to print a poster of 4' x 3' with minimal 300dpi
resolution you'd need an image that big. Of course
it would be rather dippy in a cellphone, producing
360 MB bitmaps.