Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]

[JMZawodny]

Also another (easy) SW feature they should implement, picture count with more than 4 digits. How about 5 or 6. Or unlimited. The 8 digit file names are so 80s, Canon could come to this century.

It'd be much easier and faster when looking for old pictures from the drive, since running number would be unique to each picture, and if I'm looking for certain number, when checking a folder I would immediately know if the one I'm looking is at older or newer folder, depending if the running count is smaller or higher than the pics in the folder.

No HW changes needed, just small piece of SW.

This is a no brainer for sure!! It's hard to believe it's never been done.

Jack

That isn't Canons fault, it is the international standard for image file formats.

In this situation, the acronym is the ISSIFF. The International STUPID Standard for Image File Formats.

Yup a big +1 on that. If the shutters are good for more than 100,000 shots then the numbering for images should be 6 digits.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Also another (easy) SW feature they should implement, picture count with more than 4 digits. How about 5 or 6. Or unlimited. The 8 digit file names are so 80s, Canon could come to this century.

It'd be much easier and faster when looking for old pictures from the drive, since running number would be unique to each picture, and if I'm looking for certain number, when checking a folder I would immediately know if the one I'm looking is at older or newer folder, depending if the running count is smaller or higher than the pics in the folder.

No HW changes needed, just small piece of SW.

This is a no brainer for sure!! It's hard to believe it's never been done.

Jack

That isn't Canons fault, it is the international standard for image file formats.

So is there an explanation why pressure has never been put on them to change?

Jack

 

[tpatana]

Lol, that's the attitude. If there's something that would be trivial easy for Canon to improve, but it's also possible to do manually yourself, you're pro only if you don't want Canon to make the improvement

 

[Jack Douglas]

Personally, I've stuck with keeping the original number with my own unique naming ahead of that number. I find it very easy to go back since any mod will still have that number but unfortunately it's been a pain taking the number above 10 000. The date is already in the file but I save dually by date and subject and I'm totally happy with my system except that I have to manually update the numbers that have passed 10 000.

Think if we had to redo our chronology every 1000 years what a mess we'd have in this world. What if you car's odometer rolled over at 10 000 miles.

This is not a knock on whatever the pros choose to do (will it negatively impact them if the count goes to 100000?), it's just plain simple common sense to have consecutive numbering. IMHO

Jack

 

[Loswr]

Personally, I've stuck with keeping the original number with my own unique naming ahead of that number.

I'm totally happy with my system except that I have to manually update the numbers that have passed 10 000.

This is not a knock on whatever the pros choose to do (will it negatively impact them if the count goes to 100000?), it's just plain simple common sense to have consecutive numbering. IMHO

I also prefer consecutive numbering. Since the first four characters of the file name can be customized on my camera, I initially set them to my initials (two letters), leaving two digits to increment up – that's good to a million images. I just need to remember to increment up the custom filename prefix every 10,000 shots.

 

[tpatana]

Personally, I've stuck with keeping the original number with my own unique naming ahead of that number.

I'm totally happy with my system except that I have to manually update the numbers that have passed 10 000.

This is not a knock on whatever the pros choose to do (will it negatively impact them if the count goes to 100000?), it's just plain simple common sense to have consecutive numbering. IMHO

I also prefer consecutive numbering. Since the first four characters of the file name can be customized on my camera, I initially set them to my initials (two letters), leaving two digits to increment up – that's good to a million images. I just need to remember to increment up the custom filename prefix every 10,000 shots.

My (now sold) 5D3 had TEROXXXX for file names, my 1DX has T1D_XXXX

Good idea using part of that for the file name, problem is I'd forgot it quite often.

So far biggest event I shot over 3 day, I took around 15k clicks. Typical big days are 2-4k each, so that was exceptional event. But I'd really welcome the added digits, especially since there's no more reason not to add those. Canon can stay in the 80s if they want, but it'd be good to check occasionally what all has been improved since.

 

[Neutral]

Never had an issue with 1dx file numbering.
Keep it as default and rename files automatically when importing into LR.
Using the following naming scheme for me:
YYYY-MM-DD_CustomName_CameraFileName.
Folder is the same YYYY--MM-DD_ShootingSessionName
So as result I have date at the beginning of the file, then name of shooting session and finally original camera name.
So from the imported file name and from folder name I know the date and what I was shooting.
Then it is easy to browse files structure using C1 or DXO Pro.
I usually start using Lr for first edits and the if i see that what I need could be done better in DXO Pro (e.g. high ISO noise reduction) or in C1 (better IQ at low-mid range ISO) then I use C1 or DXO.
File naming scheme which I am using makes it easy to find and selected files outside LR catalog structue, even from windows browser as from the first glance I know what is where.

 

[Loswr]

In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.

 

[Neutral]

In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.

Definitely this has nothing related to any century.
This is just matter of personal taste.
Some people prefer to use abstract UID for each image file name and then to rely on computer search engine to find required, some other people prefer self documenting file names so that everything could be clear at first glance when looking at the the file structure in ANY file browser (just using internal search engine residing in a person brain and person memory)))

 

[Loswr]

In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.

Definitely this has nothing related to any century.
This is just matter of personal taste.
Some people prefer to use abstract UID for each image file name and then to rely on computer search engine to find required, some other people prefer self documenting file names so that everything could be clear at first glance when looking at the the file structure in ANY file browser (just using internal search engine residing in a person brain and person memory)))

Agree it's personal taste. I can't recall the last time I looked for an image 'the old fashioned way', digging through the file hierarchy in an OS-level browser. It was probably sometime just after I stopped looking for library books in a card catalog. I prefer the ability to add keywords, geotags, and faces for accessing and relevant set of images I desire.

 

[tpatana]

In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.

Definitely this has nothing related to any century.
This is just matter of personal taste.
Some people prefer to use abstract UID for each image file name and then to rely on computer search engine to find required, some other people prefer self documenting file names so that everything could be clear at first glance when looking at the the file structure in ANY file browser (just using internal search engine residing in a person brain and person memory)))

But having sequential numbering already on the camera doesn't take anything away from the people who want to add their own tags on the name. But not having sequential hurts the people who don't change the file names (and/or use other method to uniquely identify pics). So why not do the nice thing and add feature that'll benefit many people, and no negative impact for the other people?

 

[Neutral]

In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.

Definitely this has nothing related to any century.
This is just matter of personal taste.
Some people prefer to use abstract UID for each image file name and then to rely on computer search engine to find required, some other people prefer self documenting file names so that everything could be clear at first glance when looking at the the file structure in ANY file browser (just using internal search engine residing in a person brain and person memory)))

But having sequential numbering already on the camera doesn't take anything away from the people who want to add their own tags on the name. But not having sequential hurts the people who don't change the file names (and/or use other method to uniquely identify pics). So why not do the nice thing and add feature that'll benefit many people, and no negative impact for the other people?

Fully agree here.
If there is no limitations of camera OS, why not to provide more flexibility for in-camera file naming options and make more users happy. Should not be very difficult.

 

[Neutral]

In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.

Definitely this has nothing related to any century.
This is just matter of personal taste.
Some people prefer to use abstract UID for each image file name and then to rely on computer search engine to find required, some other people prefer self documenting file names so that everything could be clear at first glance when looking at the the file structure in ANY file browser (just using internal search engine residing in a person brain and person memory)))

Agree it's personal taste. I can't recall the last time I looked for an image 'the old fashioned way', digging through the file hierarchy in an OS-level browser. It was probably sometime just after I stopped looking for library books in a card catalog. I prefer the ability to add keywords, geotags, and faces for accessing and relevant set of images I desire.

Having self-documenting file structure for image files and using keywords, faces marks and additional metadata just provides a bit more flexibility, especialy when using several different image editors. I find that using keywords and other metadata is very convinient in LR catalog for image selection but sometimes there is need to look at the whole file structure outside LR catalog - e.g. when swiching to C1 or just in window file browser.
I am using C1 or DXO Pro quite frequenty instead of LR.
Again, this all is just matter of personal taste and habits.

As for 1dxII have some hopes that it will have some significant advantages over 1dx .
For myself I need at least 1 stop better high ISO and wider AF coverage area.
Also more AF point when using 100-400 II with 1.4x III extender.
Currently both Sony a7s and a7rII provide better high ISO IQ than 1dx for general night time photography.
Also a7rII with latest camera and adapter FW allows to use reliably almost all sensor PDAF points when using 100-400 with 1.4x III at maximum focal length of 560mm and resulting aperture of F/8 and this in many cases provides more flexibility than 1dx in normal light conditions.
Hope that 1dxII would provides significant leap forward and will surpass anticipated Sony A9 pro level body.
Also getting used to a7r,a7s and finally to a7rII my wish is that 1dxII would be a bit more compact and noticably lighter.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Live and let live is what life is about. It's like diversity of opinion is troubling to some. We have this with the French language police in Quebec up here in Canada. They are losers ultimately, narrow minded; like arguing over how PK has to be pronounced on hockey broadcasts - truly laughable.

Every shot I've taken with the 6D with whatever alternate file names I choose all have the unique original file number appended, now surpassing 30 000 and that is not harmful to any CR member and it would not interfere with Canon's objectives going forward to provide that option. This is ridiculous - why not suggest they go back to say 1000 or 100 or 30 like a roll of film. I remain hopeful.

Jack

 

[Loswr]

Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]

So you want Canon to not be lazy so that people who buy Canon cameras can continue to be lazy?

Because that's what it amounts to. Anyone that is serious about DAM already renames their files on import.

Before I started renaming files I used to copy them onto disk, manually...

Images 1-100 would be in folder 100CANON, 101-200 in 101CANON... That works up to 99,999 images.

But the thing is I never ever wanted to find image "12,536."

I wanted to find a picture I took at someone's birthday or holiday on date X of Aunty June and Uncle Joe (for example.)

By just copying the Canon folder and file name structure I was making my own life harder than it needed to be.

It took me a couple of years before I understood that but once I did, it was a life changing moment so far as DAM was concerned.

You won't understand how putting meaning into your filenames by renaming them helps until after you do it and then you'll wonder why you didn't do it to start with.

If an image file is in a folder labeled 'Aunty June and Uncle Joe's visit' inside a folder labeled '2012 - 04 (Apr)', it really doesn't matter whether the image file is named 'IMG_6386.CR2', 'DB056386.CR2', '16Apr2012_June-Joe-Easter-Visit.CR2' or 'Dilbert's_favorite_pic_ever.JPG', it can easily be found. When that image file is in an image library management app, tagged with keywords, names, a location, and possibly even recognized faces, the file name is even more irrelevant (there's a reason image management apps allow you to toggle visibility of the filenames).

If someone chooses to add the extra step to their workflow of batch renaming at import, well...it's their time to use however they choose (hopefully for reasons other sounding 'serious about DAM').

Personally, I can find an event in no longer than it takes to type the first part of the name into a search field, find all images with a specific person from a shot taken yesterday to a scanned negative from a picture taken 30 years ago, or all images from a particular location. Despite my laziness in not wasting my time renaming files at import, my digital assets are quite well managed.

 

[Don Haines]

Every shot I've taken with the 6D with whatever alternate file names I choose all have the unique original file number appended, now surpassing 30 000 and that is not harmful to any CR member and it would not interfere with Canon's objectives going forward to provide that option. This is ridiculous - why not suggest they go back to say 1000 or 100 or 30 like a roll of film. I remain hopeful.

Jack

Exactly!

Pick a system that works for you, your workload, the number of shots you take, and how much time you wish to spend.

Personally, my system is to set the first four characters of the filename (in camera settings) to "D" (for Don) "15" (because it is 2015) and "A"..... after the first 10,000 pictures I change it to "D15B"..... and after another 10,000 pictures to "D15C".... In a few days it gets changed to "D16A"....

That way all my pictures have a unique filename.

When I load them onto the computer I put the day's shooting into one or more folders.... it looks something like:
photos/2015/2015-06-09/Barron River/
photos/2015/2015-06-09/Achray/
photos/2015/2015-06-10/Achray/
photos/2015/2015-06-11/High-Falls/

It gives me a system where I can find things easily enough...... and this is before tagging images to make searching easier.....

 

[tpatana]

Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]

...
But having sequential numbering already on the camera doesn't take anything away from the people who want to add their own tags on the name. But not having sequential hurts the people who don't change the file names (and/or use other method to uniquely identify pics). So why not do the nice thing and add feature that'll benefit many people, and no negative impact for the other people?

So you want Canon to not be lazy so that people who buy Canon cameras can continue to be lazy?

Because that's what it amounts to. Anyone that is serious about DAM already renames their files on import.

Before I started renaming files I used to copy them onto disk, manually...

Images 1-100 would be in folder 100CANON, 101-200 in 101CANON... That works up to 99,999 images.

But the thing is I never ever wanted to find image "12,536."

I wanted to find a picture I took at someone's birthday or holiday on date X of Aunty June and Uncle Joe (for example.)

By just copying the Canon folder and file name structure I was making my own life harder than it needed to be.

It took me a couple of years before I understood that but once I did, it was a life changing moment so far as DAM was concerned.

You won't understand how putting meaning into your filenames by renaming them helps until after you do it and then you'll wonder why you didn't do it to start with.

Lol, again you're diminishing people who don't act like you think pros act. I'm sure you're world best photographer, but why take away something from the average Joe that would be super easy to add from Canon?

Numbering is great for review process too. One gal reviews my shots quite often. So she'll send me email "2554 sucks, delete, 3190 crop tighter, 6811 looks good but too bright, bring down and add vignetting" etc. Having unique numbers help plenty, no need to guess which pic she refers to. Granted, basically never I have more than 10k shots, so there's no chance for mistake. But still, I don't understand why you wouldn't like a feature that takes nothing away from you, but would help lot of people. You like people to suffer? Doesn't anyone think about the kids?

 

[Loswr]

That said, you don't need to be a pro to benefit from renaming files on import.

Indeed, amateurs can waste their time doing so, too...unless they'd rather be lazy.

 

[privatebydesign]

In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.

This ^

I have never understood people taking the time and effort to rename file names, whatever it is they claim to be able to do 'faster' or more 'logically' can be done with any DAM software without their intervention, even if you are lazy with keywords and ratings, finding a specific image amongst 10's or 100's of thousands of files is easy and instant if you put the most basic of logic into how and where you store your images.

If you are reasonably good with your keywords and ratings that same DAM program will beat the pants off any custom file name many fold.

 

[tpatana]

Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]

...
Lol, again you're diminishing people who don't act like you think pros act. I'm sure you're world best photographer, but why take away something from the average Joe that would be super easy to add from Canon?
...

Like I said, I used to keep photos as they were named from my Canon camera in the folder named by my Canon camera. It made certain things easy - primarily it made dealing with backups easy.

The average Joe isn't going to benefit from image numbers going from 00001 - 99999 instead of 0001 - 9999.

That said, you don't need to be a pro to benefit from renaming files on import.

So... I'm really trying to think how renaming would help me more than sequential numbers (with at least 6 digits).

Like if I know I did shoot with Jane around September 2012 and I have pic I want to edit again. The file name is Tero1234.jpg. So I'd go folder 2012, then 09, then look through the folders for the thumbnails to see which one is correct. If not 09, check 08 and 10. Usually find the correct folder in <1 minute, and then search for the Tero1234.CR2 in that folder.

Some pros have the tags on LR, so they just search "Jane" and it'd come. Great. Doesn't need the file name at all.

So in your naming system, can you please tell me how/why changing the name makes it easier to locate the correct file?

Especially if Canon added that 6+ digit numbering system, with me going through the folders, I'd immediately know if I need to look earlier or later folders, making it even faster.

With your system, I'm not sure where I should be looking at.