https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
caulier.gil...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||caulier.gil...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #13 from Maik Qualmann ---
I have a comparison here with the AppImage digiKam-8.0.0 (older AppImages
unfortunately no longer work here) and my current Qt6 version shows no
difference when creating thumbnails and fingerprints.
Maik
--
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #12 from Maik Qualmann ---
(In reply to maderios from comment #10)
> I forgot to say i found other errors with an other digikam user account. I
> have many messages like this:
> digikam.metaengine: Exiv2 ( 2 ) : IPTC dataset Iptc.0x001c.0x0
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #11 from Maik Qualmann ---
Git commit bc4a263fefbbf58cffd5ad55d50387e4acd9a4e6 by Maik Qualmann.
Committed on 16/12/2023 at 17:32.
Pushed by mqualmann into branch 'master'.
prevent double processed images when tags are also selected
M +14
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #10 from maderios ---
I forgot to say i found other errors with an other digikam user account. I have
many messages like this:
digikam.metaengine: Exiv2 ( 2 ) : IPTC dataset Iptc.0x001c.0x0002 has invalid
size 16640; skipped.
digikam.metaen
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #9 from maderios ---
(In reply to Maik Qualmann from comment #8)
> In fact, ExifTool has to intervene a few times to read metadata, with times
> between 60-500-1100ms per image.
Not really "A few times": if we say it takes only 200 ms per i
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #8 from Maik Qualmann ---
In fact, ExifTool has to intervene a few times to read metadata, with times
between 60-500-1100ms per image.
But what is noticeable is that images are processed twice. You also selected
the “All Tags” option. Depend
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #7 from maderios ---
Created attachment 164223
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=164223&action=edit
rescan debug log
See maintenance rescan debug log (about 400 images)
I use a fresh account for these tests.
--
You are receivi
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #6 from Maik Qualmann ---
Yes, they may be scanned with ExifTool, because PNG is definitely a candidate
where Exiv2 fails. A debug log from the terminal can quickly clarify things.
Maik
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watc
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #5 from maderios ---
(In reply to Maik Qualmann from comment #1)
> I haven't looked at the valgrind file yet, I'll do that late this evening.
> But just a thought, ExifTool has been on board since digiKam-8.0.0. So if
> you have a lot of fil
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #4 from maderios ---
(In reply to Maik Qualmann from comment #3)
> From other bug reports I know that you also have XCF files.
>
> Maik
Yes, two XCF files in directory/album i used to test with valgrind today. They
don't slow down but I d
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #3 from Maik Qualmann ---
>From other bug reports I know that you also have XCF files.
Maik
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
--- Comment #2 from maderios ---
I have only 2 video files (2 .mkv) in my test directory/album, other files are
.jpeg and .png (225 files)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478554
Maik Qualmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||metzping...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Maik
14 matches
Mail list logo
