Jump to content

Dave Martin

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dave Martin last won the day on October 5

Dave Martin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Dave Martin

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Isle of Man

Recent Profile Visitors

617 profile views
  1. Dave Martin

    Working Download Link for Windows

    Jason, it may well be downloading OK, but then as soon as the AV 'sees' the file, it may take a dislike and move it into quarantine - so downloading on other devices may be no help (or relevant to the issue), if it is the AV that is moving the RTI installer as soon as it is 'seen' on your PC. Dave
  2. Dave Martin

    Working Download Link for Windows

    Jason, That sounds to me like your Anti-Virus may be moving it into quarantine as soon as it sees it on the PC. Can you look in your AV's quarantine folder or log? Dave
  3. Dave Martin

    Working Download Link for Windows

    Jason, The official download page is: http://culturalheritageimaging.org/What_We_Offer/Downloads/Process/index.html and you need to click on the link I've circled. I've just re-downloaded and it is currently working OK. If you still have failure messages, can you post a screenshot please? Dave
  4. Dave Martin

    Improper call to JPEG library in state 200

    Thanks for letting us know Alex. Cheers/Dave
  5. Dave Martin

    Improper call to JPEG library in state 200

    Alex, Thanks for posting the file, it is a great help. I'm not an expert but from a quick look at the project file, it looks like there is a space in one of the folder names between 'Research' and 'Project' C:\Users\Alex\Desktop\UNI\Research Project\RTI\ScaniculaDark001 Try renaming without the space and let us know how you get on. Dave
  6. Dave Martin

    Buying a Dome

    A_Siatou, Suggest you look at the systems built by Kirk Martinez (who contributes here but may be too polite to promote his own products) and colleagues at the University of Southampton: https://custom-imaging.co.uk/ https://custom-imaging.co.uk/geodesic-rti-dome/ Dave
  7. Dave Martin

    Builder will not launch under any circumstances

    Christine, Can you post a screenshot of the error message please? (if there are multiple error messages, a screen shot of each message please). Also, can you look at the Windows event logs and post any messages there that relate to when you try to start RTI builder please. Dave
  8. Dave Martin

    DLN:CC Beta - Rights statement linkage

    p.s. is there any other format for beta comments that would be better? is there a tracker you would like them submitting to? Dave
  9. Re Beta 1.0.3 (DB version 2.2.3) Build Apr 26 2018 15:55:31 Fully appreciate that the priority in the first beta was to expose all the functionality, but structure of the Dashboard might benefit from reorganisation - order? titles? move ‘paramaterisation’ items to a ‘Setup’ menu? System tray icon – when the focus is not on DLN:CC, the icon is just a blank white sheet – suggest something more meaningful would be useful – maybe something like the blue notebook DLN logo used on the web pages? or the CHI logo? Capture Teams – there are traces of ‘Teams’ (e.g. in export) but no UI access that I can spot anywhere in the dashboard. Suspect that Teams were at one point in there (something like equipment subassemblies) but have since been dropped, with which I personally would agree. Needs either maintenance and ability to use, or remove Teams from DLN:CC ?
  10. Re Beta 1.0.3 (DB version 2.2.3) Build Apr 26 2018 15:55:31 When creating or modifying entries on the reference lists, there doesn’t appear to be any check on whether a duplicate is being created. DLN:CC appears to (universally as far as I can see) allow the user to create duplicate entries. In the case of, say, Operator Roles, one can create two roles both called Supervisor. When one comes to associate Operators with an Image Set, you have to pick a role for the association, and you will see two indistinguishable Supervisor roles to choose from, and even if the tooltip / description had been populated, it isn’t visible. In some cases there may legitimately be multiple items such as tripod or light stand, but that would be covered by having Quantity > 1 in the equipment record as there would be no need to differentiate between them. I can envisage relatively few cases where near-duplicate entries might be required – but they would still need visually distinct names to allow them to be correctly associated. For example, if a user had two camera bodies of identical model, but different serial numbers – and the user wished to keep track of which body was used on a shoot because of the age of the body, or perhaps different firmware. Two equipment records could be created – but unless there was something distinctive about the names, the user would not know which body to associate with the image capture. It should be relatively easy for the alert user to monitor this on small lists (especially once they are sorted alphabetically) but once lists get longer, or perhaps a DLN:CC instance has multiple users, the risk of inadvertent creation of duplicate entries will increase. I would strongly suggest that DLN:CC shouldn’t allow creation of any records with identical names. List ‘shuffles’ – a disconcerting phenomenon – only seen, I think, on the Equipment Overview list. If you open the Equipment Overview and then highlight a row and click [Details], or double-click a row and then [Close] the details screen, the underlying list remains exactly unchanged. However, if you open the details and then change something (not necessarily the Name) and then click [Save], when you then [Close] the details screen, the entry you clicked on has, at first sight, disappeared! On further inspection though, it has either moved to display row 9 or the bottom of the list. This is somewhat disconcerting! If the operator has manually sorted the equipment list before activating & changing details, then the list seems to survive un-molested in the chosen order (unless the list was alphabetical and the name has changed in which case the resultant change to maintain alphabetical order is performed correctly).
  11. Re Beta 1.0.3 (DB version 2.2.3) Build Apr 26 2018 15:55:31 On the Image Set screens, as well as the ‘Created’ dates, it also exposes two date fields captioned ‘Data entry some time within’. At first, as these are only (as far as I can see) on image sets, I wondered if ‘Created’ was the capture date and ‘Data entry’ was the date on which the images were processed to build an RTI model or photogrammetric product. However, the ‘data entry’ fields are read-only, and appear to be some form of internal audit record which has both start and end date auto-populated with the date on which the record was keyed in DLN:CC? Suggest: ‘Created’ date might be better captioned ‘Capture’ date to make it clear it relates to the date the images were captured, not when the DLN record was created Audit fields not displayed elsewhere, so not needed here? It would, though, be useful to allow recording of date on which image sets were processed? (also, previous comments / discussions on date formats apply)
  12. Re Beta 1.0.3 (DB version 2.2.3) Build Apr 26 2018 15:55:31 On many list displays (e.g. Category/Type/Role) the first column of the tabular display, to the left of the ‘ID’ field, is a monotonically ascending integer which I suspect is a display index of some kind, which could be useful for debugging but can’t envisage functionality for normal users, and similarity in values with those in the ID column could potentially be confusing. Is this un-named column necessary? / should it be hidden or zero-width? Default sort order – appreciate that lists can be sorted by clicking on the column-head label, but would suggest that a consistent approach is taken to the order in which items are sorted for display when a screen first opens. This is currently not the case, for example: Equipment Categories defaults to alphabetically by name Person Overview appears to default to ascending ID Equipment Overview appears random – neither alphabetical or in ID order The list of Role options when associating an Operator with an Image Set - neither alphabetical or in ID order I would suggest that alphabetically A..Z for the ‘name’ of the item would be a reasonable and useful default.
  13. Dave Martin

    DLN:CC Beta - Rights statement linkage

    Hi Carla, Thanks very much for all the info, especially on Rights, and on Image Bundles. I’m glad to contribute a little bit back to the work CHI does; and from experience developing and leading development teams, and owning projects for deployment to users across all inhabited continents, I know how when a beta is exposed for scrutiny just merely having different pairs of eyes can raise questions, some of which are valid, others may be down to misunderstanding or differing expectation! Cheers Dave
  14. Re Beta 1.0.3 (DB version 2.2.3) Build Apr 26 2018 15:55:31 This is initially relates to silent corruption of a field in the Equipment Overview, but may have wider implications… If one is using DLN:CC Equipment Overview as a mini asset register as per the sample database, and populates a price, there are silent and insidious problems if one enters anything other than digits 0 to 9 or a decimal point by including say a currency symbol (e.g. £ for GBP) or a comma (used by many to delimit thousands, or in some regions as the separator twixt the integer portion and decimal fraction of a real number). What happens is: On the equipment overview details screen, the data entry field (whether adding a new record or editing an existing record) allows one to enter costs such as 123.45 1234.56 1,234.56 1.234,56 £123.45 £1,234.56 GBP 123.45 without any objection either when the Price field is exited or when the [Save] button is clicked. However, if one then saves, closes and goes back to view the record details, in all except the first two cases, the Price is now ‘0’. Without seeing the code, from the above it appears the failure is because the UI is accepting (meaningful and valid) ‘text’ but the database is only accepting a real with a decimal point separator. Insidiously, the whole database INSERT / UPDATE isn’t failing – if for example the serial number and price are changed, the serial number is saved/updated but the price can be corrupted to 0 if it contains anything except 0 to 9 or a decimal point. Couple of points: As there is unlikely to be any arithmetic on equipment prices, in this specific case might be best to just make the Price column in the database a text varchar, rather than numeric, column. More importantly though: 2. If there are restrictions as to what can be stored in a field, the UI needs up-front validation either when the field is exited or when the [Save] button is clicked. 3. IF the UI is posting the input from the user intact and it is being rejected by the database, then it raises the possibility that the result of commands which modify the database may not be being monitored. Dave
  15. Re Beta 1.0.3 (DB version 2.2.3) Build Apr 26 2018 15:55:31 A tick-box ‘Show associated’ appears in the Filter block on a number of screens. I fully understand this is a beta; I can understand what ‘Show associated’ does, but I’m not sure if it is needed (as much / at all), and if it is needed, its placing on the screen and its nomenclature. The data in DLN builds the database by associating, say, equipment, operators and documents with a project or image set. In pretty much every case, as it is a normalised database, one operator or document can be associated with multiple projects. What is in question here is the view ‘from the project’ side – and from the project perspective, the question of how many, and how, the higher-level objects are associated with, say, a project. ‘Show associated’ appears when the operator is given the opportunity to link higher-level objects with, say, a project. In the current beta, the left-hand pane displays a list of items that can be associated, and the right-hand pane displays a list of those have (already) been associated. Items can be added to and removed the associated list, and the corresponding entry appears/disappears in both right and left hand panes; the list on the left shows those that have not already been associated. The current system effectively operates a default mechanism to allow one of each type of entry to be associated with the project; ticking the ‘Show associated’ box populates the left-hand list with all possibilities, not just those which have already been associated. First two points: The ‘Show associated’ tick box is in the Filter pane at the top of the display, which otherwise filters the right-hand list – it would (if/when still needed) be more intuitive if ‘Show associated’ was above the left-hand pane which it influences, alongside the title of the left-hand list. The tick box’s name ‘Show associated’ would be more meaningful as ‘Show already associated’ (if/when still needed). Looking deeper though, I would question the need for ‘Show associated’ in many cases. Taking a few examples: Linking a Document to a Project – this, when established, is a direct, unqualified link. There would be no sense in linking the same document to the same project more than once, so having ‘Show associated’ on that screen is not needed. In this case, ‘Show associated’ isn’t needed. Linking Equipment to an Image Set - this, when established, is a direct, unqualified link. In this case though it is possible that multiples of the same item are used. The equipment list will probably be significantly ‘longer’ and only ‘shrink’ a little when an item is associated, so having ‘Show associated’ on that screen is of minimal benefit. If helpful validation was to be offered, then when an item is being associated, quickly check if it has already been associated and pop-up a quick message to ask the operator to confirm they wish to associate a second instance. Linking a Stakeholder to a Project – this establishes a qualified link as a role must be selected at the time the stakeholder is linked to the project. The default only allows a Stakeholder to be associated once; if a second role needs to be documented, the ‘Show associated’ needs to be ticked so that the stakeholder can be selected a second time and a second association recorded. However, there are no checks that a pre-existing role isn’t being duplicated, so by ticking ‘Show associated’ it is possible to accidentally assign a meaningless duplicate role. In this case, some safeguard is needed but ‘Show associated’ isn’t really the most appropriate – I would suggest the Stakeholder list is always left fully populated (i.e. no ‘Show associated’), and when an association is being created the pop-up linkage details screen either automatically limits the list of roles to those ‘… NOT IN …’ the existing, or quickly check before saving that it isn’t a duplication. So, 3. I would query the appropriateness or need for ‘Show associated’ as the data model is refined. Just to repeat, these are suggestions which could only be made after the valuable first beta; and I fully appreciate workflow and data model will evolve. ‘Show associated’ allowed testing to progress and these comments to be made! Dave