My latency seems far too high.
Like many others here, I primarily use my internet connection for gaming, now along the way over the past few years with BT I've never had the best connection but for a long time my ping was normal.
A couple of months ago my internet was upgraded, maybe it was something to do with the nearest exchange, I'm not sure, it wasn't an upgrade I asked for, mind. We were given the brand new homehub as well.
So the upgrade went something like 1mb - > 4.5mb. Can't complain too much, better download speeds and what not. The biggest gripe I have, that is when this upgrade occurred, my latency sky rocketed from about 15-20 to 35-40 (average) on UK servers.
It's pretty **bleep** annoying to say the least, because when I connect to other european servers it's almost unplayable and I play on servers outside of the UK the most. I rang up BT to ask for interleaving to be turned off, as usual they pretended they didn't know what it was and ignored me. So what can I do, anything? Doesn't seem right that I get 40ping to a UK server, when most of the country sits on about 15ping.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1510803701.png
hi if you want interleaving turning off then contact the forum mods at this link and get them to change you to fast http://bt.custhelp.com/app/contact_email/c/4951
they normally reply by email or phone directly to you within 72 hours
They are a UK based specialist team who have a good record at getting problems solved
If you want to say thanks for a helpful answer,please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side If the reply answers your question then please mark as ’Mark as Accepted Solution’
Similar Messages
-
Apple watch resting calories seem far too high
I've had the apple watch since the 24th, and I've worn it continuously until bedtime. All of my metrics are accurate (height/weight).
My Resting Calories (found in the iPhone activity app by swiping left under the move row) are listed as 3600 Cal. This seems incredibly high to me. My BMR is 2100 Cal, as calculated here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator
I've used other BMR sites and they all give me a similar number.
Is anyone else having this issue? I can't comprehend how it could be so high. If I ate 3600 Cal in one day (without exercising) I would be gaining weight rapidly!No.
-
X220 IPS: latency of pixels too high - slow colour switchback
Sorry guys to present you with a new problem concerning the X220 but I noticed today (only half an hour ago) that if I switch my screen to a black screensaver and wait around 15s and go back to normal screen then the colours will be "unreal" -> means they appear to bright and "undetailed" for some time (15 to 20s) and then go back to normal (it's like slowly increasing colour depth from 256k to 32bit or the latency of the all pixels is to high).
To literally talk in pictures: I have one of these standard "I-come-with-windows-please-use-me"-background pictures of a koala. In normal state I can the details of its fur. But if the I do the above the Koalas fur is more like a big grey surface.
Sadly, I couldn't capture the phenomena with a screenshot (I tried several times but no luck) so it seems to me more like a hardware issue (have an IPS panel but so far had no problem with ghosting. but I have the screen bleeding.). Also because it's late and quite dark here in Germany I can't take a good photo of it.
If a Lenovo employee should read this here are some more hints for debugging: Have a recently bought X220 (Type: 4290-W1B) and it's currently running on battery (haven't checked plugged-in yet because I'm dead tired but hopefully will have time tomorrow) with brightness level 5 (changed it to max of 15 but problem is still occuring).
Please tell me if you need more informations! And thanks for your help beforehand.
Using x230t (i5-3320M, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, 80GB mSata-SSD) and loving it!
"I may not own the world but I own my mind and therefore the world is at my feets." (me)
Solved!
Go to Solution.erik wrote:
take a look at the following KB article and see if it helps. your issue may be due to how your intel graphics control panel is set. turning off the power-saving technology option might fix it.
http://forum.lenovo.com/t5/X-Series-ThinkPad-Laptops/Display-contrast-reduced-while-on-battery-mode-...
This sounds like it'll fix my problem but I can only confirm it this evening. Thanks for the fast help!
Using x230t (i5-3320M, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, 80GB mSata-SSD) and loving it!
"I may not own the world but I own my mind and therefore the world is at my feets." (me) -
IPhoto Library seems far too large
Hi,
When I first loaded my images into iPhoto I thought what I wanted was to preserve the original file structure i.e. I keep all my images in a 'Digital Photos' folder, then broken down by year and date. So when I imported the library to iPhoto I unchecked +Copy Files To iPhoto Library.+
My iPhoto library seems just as large as my Digital Photos folder. I think now rather than have a separate folder, I'd rather just store the photos in iPhoto and half the disk space. So my two questions are:
1) If I have a 'referenced library' of aliases which appears to be the case, why is the iPhoto library package so large regardless?
2) If it were easier to use a managed library (no need for separate photos folder) how could I move all of my photos into iPhoto easily without having to erase my whole library, loosing my events and tags?
Thanks for your help!So when I imported the library to iPhoto I unchecked Copy Files To iPhoto Library.
As you probably know from reading this forum this is not a recommended way to use iPhoto - there are many drawbacks and over time it will create problems for you
1) If I have a 'referenced library' of aliases which appears to be the case, why is the iPhoto library package so large regardless?
the iPhoto library contains an original of the photo (in you case this is just an alias since you are not copying items to the iPhoto library) in the originals folder, a thumbnail (very small) of the photo in the data folder, a copy of the latest modified photo in the modified folder if any edits or modifications have been made to the photo plus a database structure description file (library6.iPhoto) and some other support files - usually small
SInce your iPhoto library is large I assume that you have edited, rotated, cropped or otherwise modified many of your photos.
2) If it were easier to use a managed library (no need for separate photos folder) how could I move all of my photos into iPhoto easily without having to erase my whole library, loosing my events and tags?
This is the recommended method of operation
TO go from a referenced library which you now have to to a managed library many people have been successful using Alias herder -http://www.rorohiko.com/aliasherder.html
Back up your iPhoto library in case of problems and run alias herder against the library - is will pull the oritinal photos into the library originals folder replacing the aliases and you will be fine if everything goes smoothly
And keep on backing up - it is important for any computer data
And strongly consider getting Old Toad's automator script and regularly backing up the database file, library6.iPhoto in addition to your regular full library backups
LN -
My subscription fee seems wrong (too high)
Hey community, This is a question for Australia - not sure if this forum is global. So I'm currently on the free premium trial but the 'My Account' page says that I will renew at $14.99 per month. On the Spotify page to become a premium member it shows the cost is $11.99 per month. That seams more reasonable and more in line with Apple Music, Xbox Music etc. Does anyone know why I'd be setup to pay $14.99? Note that I did NOT sign up via Apple because i know that's 30% higher. I signed up directly on Spotify website. If it is wrong, how to I contact Spotify to fix it? Thanks.
Hello and welcome to the Spotify community.
You can contact support with this online form.
If you receive an automated email directing you to the community and/or help boards, make sure you reply directly to that email (even if it says it is no-reply) and an agent will get back to you as soon as possible. -
X64 kernel reserve size too high?
I'm not really a noob (2yrs on Arch...), but maybe this question is. (Moderator move where you like..).
I upgraded my x32 system to x64 and now my fresh boot ram use is over ~300mb booted into openbox (~240mb booted to init 3), use to be ~200mb booted into openbox (~140 booted into init 3).
Here are some quick stats (let me know what more you need),
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3958 879 3079 0 72 388
-/+ buffers/cache: 418 3539
Swap: 3812 0 3812
dmesg|grep Memory
[ 0.000000] Memory: 3981824k/4980736k available (4490k kernel code, 787336k absent, 211576k reserved, 4412k data, 736k init)
dmesg|grep TLB
[ 1.287810] HugeTLB registered 2 MB page size, pre-allocated 0 pages
Notice the reserve... 212mb seems too high to me. Others have said around 64mb....
Last edited by workdowg (2012-03-18 11:02:21)karol wrote:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=135309
Edit: Found another user mentioning rather high reserved memory: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 21#p857921
I read through those... No real anwers... Maybe I'll just leave this topic open for a while because 212mb still seems way too high.
Edit: Thanks as usual Karol!
Last edited by workdowg (2012-03-18 12:11:29) -
IPod Touch play count WAY too high
My 16GB 2G iPod Touch has a play count which is far too high. It is like 1500 for songs I have added today. Any way to solve this?
I have tried resetting the play counts, skip counts and restoring my iPod. No luck.I'm having the same issue. I've got an iPod Touch 1G, fully updated. I'm seeing tracks that I've literally not played in weeks maybe even MONTHS come up with hundreds, and songs i've played maybe once or twice come up with thousands. I reset all the play counts to try again but it didn't make a difference, next thing i knew, a whole load of new tracks were up there in the thousands.
It's REALLY annoying, cause I've got a Most Played smart playlist, which doesn't really work in the first place as it doesn't update itself no matter how many times i plug my iPod into the computer, and even if it DID work, it wouldn't be very accurate, and I'd have a load of Janet Jackson interludes clogging up my most played, which gets annoying after a while, no matter how entertaining they are when they're part of the album!
What can we do?! -
Alert: Logical disk transfer (reads and writes) latency is too high Resolution state
Hi
We are getting following errors for my 2 virtual servers. We are getting this alert continuously. My setup Windows 2008 R2 SP1 2 node Hyper V cluster. Which is hosted 7 guest OS out of am facing this problem with to guest os. Once this alert started
my backup running slow.
Alert: Logical disk transfer (reads and writes) latency is too high
Source: E:
Path: Servername.domain.com
Last modified by: System
Last modified time: 4/23/2013 4:15:47 PM Alert description: The threshold for the Logical Disk\Avg. Disk sec/Transfer performance counter has been exceeded.
Alert view link: "http://server/OperationsManager?DisplayMode=Pivot&AlertID=%7bca891ba3-e9f2-421f-9994-7b4d6e867b33%7d"
Notification subscription ID generating this message: {F71E01AF-0BE6-8377-7BE5-5CB6F5C037A1}
Reagrds
MaheshHi,
Please see if following helps
Disk transfer (reads and writes) latency is too high
The
threshold for the Logical Disk\Avg. Disk sec/Transfer performance counter has been exceeded
If they are of no help, try asking this question in Operations Manager - General forum since alerts are generated by SCOM.
Regards, Santosh
I do not represent the organisation I work for, all the opinions expressed here are my own.
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights. -
Disk Transfer (reads and writes) Latency is Too High
i keep getting this error:
the Logical Disk\Avg. Disk sec/Transfer performance counter has been exceeded.
i got these errors on the following servers:
active directory
SQL01 (i have 2 sql clustered)
CAS03 (4 cas server loadbalanced)
HUB01
MBX02(Clustered)
a little info on our environment:
*Using SAN storage.
*Disks are new ,and working fine
*the server has GOOD hardware components(16-32 Gb RAM;Xeon or quadcore........)
i keep having these notifications everyday; i searched on the internet and i found the cause to be 1 of the 2:
1) disk hardware issue( non common=rarely )
2) the queue time on the hard-disk( time to write on the Hard-disk)
if anyone can assist me with the following:
1) is this a serious issue that will affect our enviroment?
2) is it good to edit the time of monitoring to be 10minute(instead of the default 5min)
3) is there any solution for this?(to prevent these annoying -useless??--- notifications)
4)what is the cause of this queue delay;;and FYI sometime this happens when nothing and noone is using the server (i.e the server is almost Idle)
RegardsThe problem is.... exactly what the knowledge of the alert says is wrong. It is very simple. Your disk latency is too high at times.
This is likely due to overloading the capabilities of the disk, and during peak times, the disk is underperforming. Or - it could be that occasionally, due to the design of your disks - you get a very large spike in disk latency... and this trips the
"average" counter. You could change this monitor to be a consecutive sample threshold monitor, and that would likely quiet it down.... but only doing an analysis of a perfmon of several disks over 24 hours would you be able to determine specifically
whats going on.
SCOM did exactly what it is supposed to do.... it alerted your, proactively, to the possible existence of an issue. Now you, using the knowledge already in the alert, use that information to further investigate, and determine what is the corrective
action to take.
Summary
The Avg. Disk sec/Transfer (LogicalDisk\Avg. Disk sec/Transfer) for the logical disk has exceeded the threshold. The logical disk and possibly even overall system performance may significantly diminish which will result in poor operating system and application
performance.
The Avg. Disk sec/ Transfer counter measures the average rate of disk Transfer requests (I/O request packets (IRPs)) that are executed per second on a specific logical disk. This is one measure of storage subsystem throughput.
Causes
A high Avg. Disk sec/Transfer performance counter value may occur due to a burst of disk transfer requests by either an operating system or application.
Resolutions
To increase the available storage subsystem throughput for this logical disk, do one or more of the following:
•
Upgrade the controllers or disk drives.
•
Switch from RAID-5 to RAID-0+1.
•
Increase the number of actual spindles.
Be sure to set this threshold value appropriately for your specific storage hardware. The threshold value will vary according to the disk’s underlying storage subsystem. For example, the “disk†might be
a single spindle or a large disk array. You can use MOM overrides to define exception thresholds, which can be applied to specific computers or entire computer groups.
Additional Information
The Avg. Disk sec/Transfer counter is useful in gathering throughput data. If the average time is long enough, you can analyze a histogram of the array’s response to specific loads (queues, request sizes, and so on). If possible, you should
observe workloads separately.
You can use throughput metrics to determine:
•
The behavior of a workload running on a given host system. You can track the workload requirements for disk transfer requests over time. Characterization of workloads is an important part of performance analysis and capacity planning.
•
The peak and sustainable levels of performance that are provided by a given storage subsystem. A workload can either be used to artificially or naturally push a storage subsystem (in this case, a given logical disk) to its limits. Determining these
limits provides useful configuration information for system designers and administrators.
However, without thorough knowledge of the underlying storage subsystem of the logical disk (for example, knowing whether it is a single spindle or a massive disk array), it can be difficult to provide an optimized one size fits all threshold value.
You must also consider the Avg. Disk sec/Transfer counter in conjunction with other transfer request characteristics (for example, request size and randomness/sequentially) and the equivalent counters for write disk requests.
If the Avg. Disk sec/Transfers counter is tracked over time and if it increases with the intensity of the workloads that are driving the transfer requests, it is reasonable to suspect that the logical disk is saturated if throughput does not increase and
the user experiences degraded system throughput.
For more information about storage architecture and driver support, see the Storage - Architecture and Driver Support Web site at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=26156. -
I have a macbook pro OS leopard 10.5.8. I've synced it with an iPad 2. I cannot access the cloud because my OS is insufficient. Problem is most of my most- used applications would not work with a too-high system upgrade. I can't afford to upgrade all my apps. I need to know: what would be the least-high system upgrade I can install in order to access the cloud on my new iPad 2?
MAC O.S. 10.5.8 - LEOPARD
MacBookPro
MacBookPro4,1
Intel Core 2 Duo - 2.5 GHz; speed 800 MHz
Quark Express 7.3
Adobe Acrobat 8 Pro
Adobe Photoshop CS 3
Adobe Illustrator CS 3
Adobe InDesign CS 3
Microsoft Office 2008
Extensis Suitcase Fusion 12.1.7
Stuffit 12
Thanx
calico6Define "access the cloud". I can access my iCloud.com account on my 5 year old iMac at work running OS X 10.4.11 Tiger. I can download and upload Word documents and Pages documents in the iWorks section of my iCloud.com account.
What do you want to access in "the cloud"?
Snow Leopard would be your next system upgrade and you should be OK with the CS3 applications, and Office 2008. I cannot confirm that the other applications will work.
This is quite old, but take a look or Google the other applications to see if they are compatible with SL.
http://www.macintouch.com/specialreports/snowleopard/slcompat.html -
Captured video-material appears far too dark
hi there!
I have a great problem (being under time-pressure with a project): video-material, taken with a canon HV30, that looks all right on the camera-screen, appears FAR TOO DARK (not usable), after beeing captured. the problem does not seem to be a premiere-problem (I have CS3), since windows movie maker produces the same fault. it is neither a pc-screen-calibration or -regulation-problem, since the same material played onto the same screen by another pc, that displays everthing else perfectly, is also too dark. the answer must be between the cam-corder and the capturing software? does someone have a clue? (the problem seems to be not only mine if you check via google... and the solution seems not to be at hand...)
I'm working with DV-widescreen(16:9)-PAL-material converting it with 16-bit sound and 48 kHz.
following my relevant systems-data... (everything is updated with the most recent drivers...)
thanks very much indeed in advance!
hilmar
System Information
Time of this report: 11/21/2008, 23:54:29
Machine name: PC02
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.080814-1233)
Language: German (Regional Setting: German)
System Manufacturer: MAXDATA
System Model: *
BIOS: Default System BIOS
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 4400 @ 2.00GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 2048MB RAM
Page File: 766MB used, 3172MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.2180 32bit Unicode
DxDiag Notes
DirectX Files Tab: No problems found.
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
Music Tab: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.
Network Tab: No problems found.
DirectX Debug Levels
Direct3D: 0/4 (n/a)
DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (n/a)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (n/a)
DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow: 0/6 (retail)
Display Devices
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce 8600 GTS
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0400&SUBSYS_040110B0&REV_A1
Display Memory: 256.0 MB
Current Mode: 1280 x 1024 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor: (Standardmonitor)
Monitor Max Res:
Driver Name: nv4_disp.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.0011.7824 (English)
DDI Version: 9 (or higher)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 10/7/2008 13:33:00, 6058112 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
WHQL Date Stamp: n/a
VDD: Nicht zutreffend
Mini VDD: nv4_mini.sys
Mini VDD Date: 10/7/2008 13:33:00, 6133856 bytes
Device Identifier: {D7B71E3E-4740-11CF-906D-0A2400C2CB35}
Vendor ID: 0x10DE
Device ID: 0x0400
SubSys ID: 0x040110B0
Revision ID: 0x00A1
Revision ID: 0x00A1
Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_C ModeMPEG2_D ModeWMV9_B ModeWMV9_A
Deinterlace Caps: {6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Fthanks,
dear craig,
for your thoughts and tips!
I will do that just for curiosity. but then I would have to know how the waveform-scopes should ideally look like? where can I find model-scopes? (and, what's more, the camera "gave up its spirit", as we say in german: can't be switched on any more - brand new... so I'll have to get it fixed...)
but: it seems to me, that your path-finding leads in the wrong direction... see: the camera records pictures digitally on a tape. from the tape it is able to read the data again out onto a screen - and fine! now: you should be able to reproduce that outside the camera - and not blame it somehow...
others seem to have the same problem with different cameras and different systems-cominations (operating system, graphic cards...). so it can't be just my camera. the problem is not so easy...
the guy here - http://forum.videohelp.com/topic281706.html - seems to aim in the right direction (imho): he touches the point of the colour-spaces used! he says inside the camcorder IRE 0.0 / 16-235 color space is used. right? well: outside the cam on a computer-screen RGB or sRGB is used, right? so some transformation has to happen - or may be, it is not done - with the bad result, we have...
now the chap there speaks about the possibly wrong codecs. a codec however has to do with compression/decompression. but - they say - the capturing via firewire is just the unaltered transmission of data, and .avi (the resulting format) is compression-free! so the problem is not a codec-problem. but how's the software called that changes the color-spaces or should change them???
what astonished me very much is to see that, when I change the screen-settings for color/luminance with my nvidia-graphics-card, then everything on the screen changes exept! the to video-images in the two screens (source, program) in premiere... so premiere seems to use its own screen-controle here!
and why actually can't I choose somewhere which the output-conditions for and after the capturing shall be, e.g. the clip-format (.avi, .mov etc.) and - may be! - the color-space! I can just say "DV 25i PAL max. bit-depth" and, under device(=cam)-controle, brand and type of device (and again PAL). now I can choose "canon" but not "HV30" (not contained in the list) - just "standard" instead. but that raises the question: what colour-space are the various cameras using and sending??
now if I check the supported camera-brands and -types online on the adobe-website (http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/dvhdwrdb.html) I can't find canon's HV30 (just the semi-pro-models, for which "conditional support" is promised... but problems seem to lay elsewhere).
on the website, where you can check the compatibility of your cam with premiere, adobe boasts its "Preconfigured solutions
Certified Adobe OpenHD configurations (that) help ensure compatibility between hardware and software components." if you click on the linked text some general boasting and buy exhortations about the "creative suite" come up - no precise information...
should this well known and ill suffered compatibility problem not be handled more clearly and competently?
please help me finding the solution, which is: to interprete the recorded data on the tape, that get transferred via capturing, like the camera does!
thanks a lot indeed!
hilmar
ps: it is interesting to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space, where it says: "YIQ was formerly used in NTSC (North America, Japan and elsewhere) television broadcasts for historical reasons. This system stores a luminance value with two chrominance values, corresponding approximately to the amounts of blue and red in the color. It is similar to the YUV scheme used in most video capture systems[2] and in PAL (Australia, Europe, except France, which uses SECAM) television, except that the YIQ color space is rotated 33° with respect to the YUV color space. ...
" you see: two different color spaces in TV and CAPTURE SYSTEMS! is premiere not a capture system?? and what do the graphics-devices underway between the camera and premiere?? -
Hallo,
message
nunew33, "Mpeg not valid error message" #4, 31 Jan 2006 3:29 pm describes a certain error message. The user had problems with an imported MPEG movie.
Now I receive the same message, but the MPEG that is causing the problem is created by Encore DVD itself!?
I am working with the german version, but here is a rough translation of the message:
"PGC 'Weitere Bilder' has an error at 00:36:42:07.
The data rate of this file is too high for DVD. You must replace the file with one of a lower data rate. - PGC Info: Name = Weitere Bilder, Ref = SApgc, Time = 00:36:42:07"
My test project has two menus and a slide show with approx. 25 slides and blending as transition. The menus are ok, I verified that before.
First I thought it was a problem with the audio I use in the slide show. Because I am still in the state of learning how to use the application, I use some test data. The audio tracks are MP3s. I learned already that it is better to convert the MP3s to WAV files with certain properties.
I did that, but still the DVD generation was not successful.
Then I deleted all slides from the slide show but the first. Now the generation worked!? As far as a single slide (an image file) can not have a bitrate per second, and there was no sound any more, and as far as the error message appears AFTER the slide shows are generated, while Encore DVD is importing video and audio just before the burning process, I think that the MPEG that is showing the slide show is the problem.
But this MPEG is created by Encore DVD itself. Can Encore DVD create Data that is not compliant to the DVD specs?
The last two days I had to find out the cause for a "general error". Eventually I found out that image names must not be too long. Now there is something else, and I still have to just waste time for finding solutions for apparent bugs in Encore DVD. Why doesn't the project check find and tell me such problems? Problem is that the errors appear at the end of the generation process, so I always have to wait for - in my case - approx. 30 minutes.
If the project check would have told me before that there are files with file names that are too long, I wouldn't have had to search or this for two days.
Now I get this PGC error (what is PGC by the way?), and still have no clue, cause again the project check didn't mention anything.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Christian KirchhoffHallo,
thanks, Ruud and Jeff, for your comments.
The images are all scans of ancient paintings. And they are all rather dark. They are not "optimized", meaning they are JPGs right now (RGB), and they are bigger then the resolution for PAL 3:4 would require. I just found out that if I choose "None" as scaling, there is no error, and the generation of the DVD is much, much faster.
A DVD with a slide show containing two slides and a 4 second transition takes about 3 minutes to generate when the scaling is set to something other than "None". Without scaling it takes approx. 14 seconds. The resulting movies size is the same (5,35 MB).
I wonder why the time differs so much. Obviously the images have to be scaled to the target size. But it seems that the images are not scaled only once, that those scaled versions of the source images are cached, and those cached versions are used to generate then blend effect, but for every frame the source images seem to be scaled again.
So I presume that the scaling - unfortunately - has an effect on the resulting movie, too, and thus influences the success of the process of DVD generation.
basic situation:
good image > 4 secs blend > bad image => error
variations:
other blend times don't cause an error:
good image > 2 secs blend > bad image => success
good image > 8 secs blend > bad image => success
other transitions cause an error, too:
good image > 4 secs fade to black > bad image => error
good image > 4 secs page turn > bad image => error
changing the image order prevents the error:
bad image > 4 secs blend > good image => success
changing the format of the bad image to TIFF doesn't prevent the error.
changing colors/brightness of the bad image: a drastic change prevents the error. I adjusted the histogram and made everything much lighter.
Just a gamma correction with values between 1.2 and 2.0 didn't help.
changing the image size prevents the error. I decreased the size. The resulting image was still bigger than the monitor area, thus it still had to be scaled a bit by Encore DVD, but with this smaller version the error didn't occur. The original image is approx. 2000 px x 1400 px. Decreasing the size by 50% helped. Less scaling (I tried 90%, 80%, 70% and 60%, too) didn't help.
using a slightly blurred version (gaussian blur, 2 px, in Photoshop CS) of the bad image prevents the error.
My guess is that the error depends on rather subtle image properties. The blur doesn't change the images average brightness, the balance of colors or the size of the image, but still the error was gone afterwards.
The problem is that I will work with slide shows that contain more images than two. It would be too time consuming to try to generate the DVD over and over again, look at which slide an error occurs, change that slide, and then generate again. Even the testing I am doing right now already "ate" a couple of days of my working time.
Only thing I can do is to use a two image slide show and test image couple after image couple. If n is the number of images, I will spend (n - 1) times 3 minutes (which is the average time to create a two slides slide how with a blend). But of course I will try to prepare the images and make them as big as the monitor resolution, so Encore DVD doesn't have to scale the images any more. That'll make the whole generation process much shorter.
If I use JPGs or TIFFs, the pixel aspect ratio is not preserved when the image is imported. I scaled one of the images in Photoshop, using a modified menu file that was installed with Encore DVD, because it already has the correct size for PAL, the pixel aspect ratio and the guides for the save areas. I saved the image as TIFF and as PSD and imported both into Encore DVD. The TIFF is rendered with a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio and NOT with the D1/DV PAL aspect ration that is stored in the TIFF. Thus the image gets narrowed and isn't displayed the way I wanted it any more. Only the PSD looks correct. But I think I saw this already in another thread...
I cannot really understand why the MPEG encoding engine would produce bit rates that are illegal and that are not accepted afterwards, when Encore DVD is putting together all the stuff. Why is the MPEG encoding engine itself not throwing an error during the encoding process? This would save the developer so much time. Instead they have to wait until the end, thinking everything went right, and find out then that there was a problem.
Still, if sometime somebody finds out more about the whole matter I would be glad about further explanations.
Best regards,
Christian -
Ms word95 to pdf - "security level too high"?
I'm a brand new user of Acrobat 9.0 (on XP system) - all kinds of problems (including major file crash and loss during 9.0 installation - more on that later). for now, I need to get started immediately on converting some MS Word doc files to pdfs - What I get from 9.0 is the message that "The Security Level is Too High". If it's referring to the MS word docs, they are unprotected (I've checked and tried several - Word shows they are not protected, and as far as I know, never have been). They were originally created on a mac with macWord - but were not protected and converted to windows with MacDrive7. They show in MS Word in good condition and unprotected. What do I need to do to get them into acrobat and into pdf format? I've also check the knowledge base here and elswhere without any clues except one chap who seemed to be having similar problems (along with serious crashes) using 8.1. Other than that, I'm mistified.
I've also tried using the context menu 'covert to pdf' method and also creating a new pdf (blank) and inserting them. In both cases the security message aborted the process. Need to do this right away. I'm not technically skilled, so if someone can give me some clear instructions I'd be grateful. - redThank you all for responding so quickly. First, I'll mention the serious message and a warning. DO NOT INSTALL ACROBAT 9.0 IN AN ENVIRONMENT WITH WORD 7.0 (or any old(er) MS Word version before 2k). The consequences are ghastly, including the deletion of half or more of your program files (including your email clients, av software and other primary programs), the corruption of your browser, registry (including restore points) and other not so nice events - worse than most bad viruses. That's a problem Adobe and I will probably be taking a look at next week. Mean time, they indicate that they are going to add the matter to their KB and elswhere so that users have a heads-up on the issue.
As for the conversion problem from Word 7.0 .doc to .pdf - Bill, you just about nailed it. It was, indeed, a problem that could be circumvented by going to the printer dialog and setting the printer to 'Adobe pdf file' (something a novice wouldn't think of, nor line tech-support for that matter.). As far as Word/pdf 'printer' is concerned you're just printing the file. However, as I understand things, that's how Adobe attaches the Word documents - It does it through the printer interface. Once that setting is changed to 'Adobe pdf printer' the file is simply picked from the print queue (or before) and loaded into A9. Save it from A9, and the job is done. So, Bill, If Adobe hadn't found the answer, I do believe you would have been telling me exactly how to do it after a few more posts. The credit, though, goes to Neo Johnson, tech-support supervisor in New Delhi. The last two days (almost 9 hours of phone time) were spent with various tech-support agents at Adobe; but, he was the one who finely thought about the interaction between A9 and Word and figured it out.
Ok -that's the brief. The rest is a little history/background for whomever is interested (skip, otherwise - not important). The problem begins with failure to install - first, setup can't find the msi file - it was there, and I browsed it, so that was solved. Then 'invalid licensing - process stopped' messages appear. That was a little tougher and http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405970.html and some other articles had me doing repair, reinstall, and other complex (for me) procedures. One of the problems was that flexnet had failed to install, which was a stumper for me (I couldn't find it to download separately - barely knew what it was/did - and finally understood that Adobe was supposed to install it. After that, I did several uninstalls, to no effect. Finally I did a few moderate and then deep uninstalls (with Revo) and several reinstalls. Things got progressively worse. On one reboot, my desktop came up and all the program icons were broken links. I examined targets and such and then went to my 'program files' directory. To my horror, nearly all my primary program (including thunderbird email client, AVG etc.) files had disappeared. The folders were simply empty. Firefox still loaded, but the tabs were non functional. Several checks and some light disc analysis indicated the files vanished. No trace. However, my document folders and data were intact (also backed-up). I went to restore and found that all the old restore points (including the one's Revo sets before uninstalling) were gone. If it had been a virus, it couldn't have done a better job at making a mess of things. At that point, I knew the registry had been toasted and I was facing a complete OS reinstall. Instead, I opted for reinstalling some of the critical programs (and because the document files appeared to be intact). After the first few - thunderbird, firefox etc. - I was relieve to find that they were picking up on the old settings and restoring themselves to their previous states. I still have a number of these to do - and a few must be re-configured. But that's going ok.
Then the saga of Adobe, several phone calls; several times the phone connection was cut off and I had to call again and start over from the beginning with a new person. The matter always had to be esculated to the next tier - more time, more cues, no solutions. They went over the firefox settings, the adobe settings. They were puzzled about the broken links. Attempts to open doc files (after a fresh install of winword) were resulting in 'invalid win32 application'. All kinds of problems made progress difficult. We cleared up the 'invalid....' messages by reparing the file associations (in XP folder options) and then opening the docs in Word and resaving them as something else. It was a labor. Finally, there was simply no answer except, like the post here, Word 7 is simply too old and uses different scripting. The only solution was to either buy (ugh, ouch!) Word 2007 (and hope that it would load them and save them in A9 useable form) or, try installing Word2k (which I have) and processing them through that; and, then using Acrobat 8.x to load those and save the pdfs for A9 to use. However, when Adobe said they could not provide me with a free (even trial) version of 8.x to do the job - licensing problems etc. -- It seemed like a really ugly solution. Finally, I'm begging Adobe to give me a free copy of 8.x and in steps Neo. He can't provide the free copy, but he asks a few questions himself. We go to Adobe and reset some of the security settings (something other agents didn't know or think of). No dice - still can't load the docs. But then he says, Open up Word. Ok. load the file and then hit 'print' - ok, the print dialog comes up. 'Now,' he says, 'open the properties and see what printers are listed.' Ok I do that, and I'll be... 'Adobe pdf printer' is among them. "Just what I thought," he said, Adobe was hooking up with word, but didn't have its printer to attach." So we set 'Adobe pdf' as the printer and lo and behold, the docs loaded into Adobe as pdfs. End of that story. (so bill, you had it too - wish you had answered the phone in the first place!)
Clean up. So, there's a few simple solutions, I think (though i'm no techie and you folks will certainly have better ideas). First, I don't buy the story that early versions of Word are either 1) unsupported by MS or, 2) nobody uses them, as valid reasons why not to fix the problem of the "unloadable" docs. I figure there are at least a couple of aproaches and easy patches that will correct the matter. One is from the Word side - to is to set the current printer setting to use 'Adobe printer', get the file and then reset the printer back to what it was - default. The other is to patch A9 to detect legacy source applications and bypass things that would normally make the file unloadable, unless, of course, they were actually protected or, read only files. In that case, Adobe could simply inform the user to 'unprotect' them, the same as it now does with its 'Security Setting too High' message for later versions. I'm sure there are even better ways. But, that would fix things as far as file loading and conversion.
As to the installation and crash problems - those need to be addressed. Even if its only a few dozen people that might have the same problem, it needs 1) to be given as a noticable warning and keyword in Adobe documents (which now simply indicate that it can process .doc files); 2) it needs to be examined to insure systems that have Word 7.x or older can install without problem, and certainly without harming their system. Adobe has a good reputation and does a good job. That's worth protecting with all customers, even if Marketing can't quite see why and the bean counters can't find much profit in the task. It's what I expect from professionals and to do less certainly subtracts from Adobe's standing. That should be worth a great deal, I would imagine.
Anyway, thanks folks - got to get some sleept, and then get those pdfs done and sent to people who are waiting for them. - best to you all, red. -
I have just spent 4 hours using Lightroom 4 to adjust 600 images for one of my clients. If I had used Lightroom 3 it would have taken half the time. Sorry to say that in it's present form the software is far too slow to be considered for professional use. I hope that Adobe fix this before the software is officially launched.
Agreed... LR4b is not as speedy as LR3. In my own use, thus far, I haven't noticed too many enormous speed deficiencies... but I concur that it is slower overall.
My only point was that, given the assumption that the final release of LR4 will be refined to be mostly comparable in speed to LR3, there's no other wildcards that would affect LR's performance as high-volume post-processing software. Thus, there's no reason to fear that LR4 would be any less equipped for high-volume work than LR3. The workflow is still essentially the same... the only variable is the software's processing performance. If you "personally think that Adobe will fix the speed issue", then there's nothing to be worried about and no necessity to put the beta version through the paces with high-volume processing.
The whole point of the beta is to allow us to sample the new enhancements and provide feedback, not to put what is arguably "prototype" software into a rigorous production scenario. It's not refined for that scale of use yet. If the fundamental workflow of LR4 represented a massive diversion from that of LR3, it would be a different story... but the two versions are fundamentally the same and there's no reason that our workflow would take significantly longer with the final release of LR4.
As far as wanting a "well sorted base software" and foregoing geo-tagging video and what not, I'm not really sure what you mean. Forego geo-tagging for what? I don't get it. But if your only hang-up with LR4b is the performance of the beta version (which is certain to improve by the final release), then it would seem that you like LR4, right? -
I have upgraded to Mavericks and have found the Calendar 7.0 not visually user friendly. The week view is too resrictive and the month view far too messy. Is there any way of editting the view, the ability to change the colour and thickness of the grid lines would at least help. This version of Calendar seems to be a retrograde step.
Agree. Positively loathe the new calendar display - each day blends into the next and I can't get my information at a glance. Looks like it's time to switch to BusyCal or Google Calendar.
Maybe you are looking for
-
No pics, ads, etc. just text but, not HTML. Started with 1 site -- now up to 3 or 4. Tried deleting cache and cookies, then restart -- no joy. Please advise,
-
Getting error while Using BAPI Interface in VB
Hi, I m getting error message while creating object of SAP.BAPI.1 Error message is "out of memory : run time error 7". do I need to install any patch to my local PC? If yes then from where could i get that patch. Plz help me out. Thanks & Regards, Sa
-
Getting HTTP transport error: when trying to access the webservices
Hi, I have created proxy in JDeveloper 10g. When trying to access the webservices, getting the following error: javax.xml.rpc.soap.SOAPFaultException: exception on JaxRpc invoke: HTTP transport error: javax.xml.soap.SOAPException: java.security.Privi
-
hi all, when i export java project as jar file i got a message[i] jar creation failed it's because of duplicate entry: .classpath how can i avoid this problem Thanks alot
-
Lots Of Problems Viewing Episodes Online!
Hi all, Can you send me the links of the videos that are giving you these issues? I would like to further test them. Thanks, Joe XfinityTV.com/Xfinity.com Support