5 ms·

No it's not unique enough. D750 has this naming scheme: DSC_4203.jpg (or nef). Which obviously wraps at 9999. Z7 has SZ7_1234.jpg - still not better. Several

by gsich 3y ago

No it's not unique enough. D750 has this naming scheme: DSC_4203.jpg (or nef). Which obviously wraps at 9999. Z7 has SZ7_1234.jpg - still not better. Several subfolders don't count, it's the same folder that is important.

mikewarot 3y ago
The D5100 creates a new folder when it wraps.
- gsich 3y ago
  Yes. On camera it's not an issue. The issue comes when you want to store more than 10000 pictures (or even a subset who happen to have the same numbering) in the same folder. But I already wrote that subfolders don't count. To quote Ken Rockwell: >File numbers have three programmable letters (good), but then an underscore and only 4 digits, so it only can make 10,000 shots before file names repeat. At 120 FPS it's trivially easy to make more than 10,000 shots in just a half hour of shooting sports, and now you have to keep all those images in separate folders because you can't put two files with the same name in the same folder. Nikon needs to replace the underscore with a digit so we have at least five digits in our file numbers. Even LEICA's pokey LEICA M9 of 2009 uses seven digits in their file names to prevent duplicates, and that camera barely worked at 1 FPS. It's an arbitrary restriction in the camera software. It needs to be fixed.
  - mikewarot 3y ago
    Many file systems struggle with a large number of files in a single folder. It's a relatively new problem to have. A few lines of python or a shell script are required to rename them on import I can see how it is annoying, though. It is, after all, the first of the 2 biggest problems of computer science: Naming Cache invalidation Off by one errors
    - gsich 3y ago
      10000 is not many. It's not even a power of 2 so there is no technical reason for that number. The fact that Nikon (according to the article) is able to provide a fixed firmware is proof enough.
      - mikewarot 3y ago
        If you put more than 10,000 files in a single folder on a host system, you may have trouble, depending on the file system. Here's a good example of why from [1] This isn't really a very big deal with newer filesystems such as XFS and ext4, but on older or misconfigured filesystems it can be a serious problem. With older Linux filesystems such as ext3, a directory is just an unordered list of files. That it is unordered is important, because it means that the only way for the system to find a file in a directory is to search it from the beginning to the end. If a directory contains 3,000 files, it will take an average of 1,500 comparisons to find a random file in the directory. But if the directory contains 300,000 files, it will take an average of 150,000 comparisons to find a random file in that directory. In either case, if the directory entry is not already cached in RAM, it must be loaded from disk, which would add a significant amount of time to the file access, proportionate to the size of the directory. Obviously a small dentry can be loaded faster than a large one. Thus, it is much faster when you use a more hierarchical directory structure to separate large numbers of files into unique directories. [1] https://serverfault.com/questions/736872/why-there-shouldnt-be-too-many-files-in-one-directory-that-serves-just-static-w https://serverfault.com/questions/736872/why-there-shouldnt-...
        gsich 3y ago
        So not a problem. See XFS and ext4 as you wrote. I don't care about legacy filesystems. Neither should Nikon. Besides, even if Nikon stores them in different folders, they could keep the numbering. Not reset it to 0. Best of all worlds. Also, this issue could also arise even with 2 pictures you want to store in the same folder. (Although renaming is easier ofc then)

by gsich 3y ago

mikewarot 3y ago

The D5100 creates a new folder when it wraps.

gsich 3y ago
Yes. On camera it's not an issue. The issue comes when you want to store more than 10000 pictures (or even a subset who happen to have the same numbering) in the same folder. But I already wrote that subfolders don't count. To quote Ken Rockwell: >File numbers have three programmable letters (good), but then an underscore and only 4 digits, so it only can make 10,000 shots before file names repeat. At 120 FPS it's trivially easy to make more than 10,000 shots in just a half hour of shooting sports, and now you have to keep all those images in separate folders because you can't put two files with the same name in the same folder. Nikon needs to replace the underscore with a digit so we have at least five digits in our file numbers. Even LEICA's pokey LEICA M9 of 2009 uses seven digits in their file names to prevent duplicates, and that camera barely worked at 1 FPS. It's an arbitrary restriction in the camera software. It needs to be fixed.
- mikewarot 3y ago
  Many file systems struggle with a large number of files in a single folder. It's a relatively new problem to have. A few lines of python or a shell script are required to rename them on import I can see how it is annoying, though. It is, after all, the first of the 2 biggest problems of computer science: Naming Cache invalidation Off by one errors
  - gsich 3y ago
    10000 is not many. It's not even a power of 2 so there is no technical reason for that number. The fact that Nikon (according to the article) is able to provide a fixed firmware is proof enough.
    - mikewarot 3y ago
      If you put more than 10,000 files in a single folder on a host system, you may have trouble, depending on the file system. Here's a good example of why from [1] This isn't really a very big deal with newer filesystems such as XFS and ext4, but on older or misconfigured filesystems it can be a serious problem. With older Linux filesystems such as ext3, a directory is just an unordered list of files. That it is unordered is important, because it means that the only way for the system to find a file in a directory is to search it from the beginning to the end. If a directory contains 3,000 files, it will take an average of 1,500 comparisons to find a random file in the directory. But if the directory contains 300,000 files, it will take an average of 150,000 comparisons to find a random file in that directory. In either case, if the directory entry is not already cached in RAM, it must be loaded from disk, which would add a significant amount of time to the file access, proportionate to the size of the directory. Obviously a small dentry can be loaded faster than a large one. Thus, it is much faster when you use a more hierarchical directory structure to separate large numbers of files into unique directories. [1] https://serverfault.com/questions/736872/why-there-shouldnt-be-too-many-files-in-one-directory-that-serves-just-static-w https://serverfault.com/questions/736872/why-there-shouldnt-...
      - gsich 3y ago
        So not a problem. See XFS and ext4 as you wrote. I don't care about legacy filesystems. Neither should Nikon. Besides, even if Nikon stores them in different folders, they could keep the numbering. Not reset it to 0. Best of all worlds. Also, this issue could also arise even with 2 pictures you want to store in the same folder. (Although renaming is easier ofc then)