Problem with Jobmanager after update to Version 8.5.0r3

[jan54]

After updating to AI Studio 8.5.0.r3 Build nummer 14339, I have to change the name in Jobmanager when using an index.
See Error.jpg.
In the previous version the the default name was "Image", now it is "Image 1"
Very annoying.

Jobmanager error?

Error.jpg (43.37 KiB) Viewed 2819 times

[LSI_Ketelhohn]

Dear customer,

This due to a change that we made to preserve dates and indexes in file names.
We will correct this in a coming update.

Kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn.

[tommyleebones]

Dear customer,

This due to a change that we made to preserve dates and indexes in file names.
We will correct this in a coming update.

Kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn.

I'm having a problem with the indexing names in the Batch Scan dialog box: It used to be that when I clicked on a previous scanned image in a series, the program would automatically split up the root name from the index number. Now it assumes both are the root name, and adds another index number afterwards. For example, if I have a file named "RoadTrip_003", and I click on it in the Batch Scan dialog box, it will save the next file as "RoadTrip_003004". It used to just change 003 to 004 correctly.

Will this be fixed in the update as well?

[LSI_Ketelhohn]

Dear customer,

This due to a change that we made to preserve dates and indexes in file names.
We will correct this in a coming update.

Kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn.

I'm having a problem with the indexing names in the Batch Scan dialog box: It used to be that when I clicked on a previous scanned image in a series, the program would automatically split up the root name from the index number. Now it assumes both are the root name, and adds another index number afterwards. For example, if I have a file named "RoadTrip_003", and I click on it in the Batch Scan dialog box, it will save the next file as "RoadTrip_003004". It used to just change 003 to 004 correctly.

Will this be fixed in the update as well?

There is a checkbox if you want to keep a spacing between the name and the number.
According to my tests that still works correctly.

Kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn

[LSI_Ketelhohn]

Dear Jan 54,

Sorry I just accidentally deleted your post.

When will the update be available?

I unfortunately do not have a release date for the fix yet.

Kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn.

[tommyleebones]

Dear customer,

This due to a change that we made to preserve dates and indexes in file names.
We will correct this in a coming update.

Kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn.

I'm having a problem with the indexing names in the Batch Scan dialog box: It used to be that when I clicked on a previous scanned image in a series, the program would automatically split up the root name from the index number. Now it assumes both are the root name, and adds another index number afterwards. For example, if I have a file named "RoadTrip_003", and I click on it in the Batch Scan dialog box, it will save the next file as "RoadTrip_003004". It used to just change 003 to 004 correctly.

Will this be fixed in the update as well?

There is a checkbox if you want to keep a spacing between the name and the number.
According to my tests that still works correctly.

Kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn

Thank you for your response but spacing is not what I'm worried about. Let's say I have done a batch scan, and for the 'Name' I enter in "RoadTrip_" and for 'Start Index At' I enter in "001". So my first three photos are:
- RoadTrip_001
- RoadTrip_002
- RoadTrip_003

For the next film strip, I would like to continue the naming pattern. In the old Silverfast, when I clicked batch scan, I would simply have to click on the last file, and it would autofill the necessary fields. So I would click on "RoadTrip_003" and automatically 'Name' would say "RoadTrip_" and 'Start Index At' would say "004". So the next three photos would be:
- RoadTrip_004
- RoadTrip_005
- RoadTrip_006

But now, when I'm in the Batch Scan window and I click on the last photo, it doesn't erase the index number from the name. So when I click "RoadTrip_003", that is what is put in the 'Name' box, in its entirety. So my now, my next three photos are:
- RoadTrip_003004
- RoadTrip_003005
- RoadTrip_003006

If I did another scan and clicked on the last file, the next photos would be:
- RoadTrip_003006007
- RoadTrip_003006008
- RoadTrip_003006009

And so on and so on...

Does this make sense? I'm sure it is a minor oversight in the coding of the new update, but it is a huge drag on my workflow. I hope it's something easy to fix. Thank you!

[LSI_Ketelhohn]

Dear customer,

Yes like I wrote above we have to fix that.
Unfortunately it did not make it into our current update.

Kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn.

[jan54]

I think you mean "it did not make it into...."
In Version 8.5.0r4 this is not fixed.

[LSI_Ketelhohn]

Yes sorry I mistyped there.
I have corrected that.

Kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn.

[tommyleebones]

So, my solution has been to make a "dummy" file, which has the root name I would like, but with no index number. Then I put this "dummy" in the same folder as my scans, like so:

Screen Shot 2015-07-22 at 2.25.40 PM.png (245.06 KiB) Viewed 2312 times

So when I go to batch scan, I can click on the dummy file, and only that will fill in as the root name:

Screen Shot 2015-07-22 at 2.35.49 PM.png (246.13 KiB) Viewed 2312 times

NOW I can hit 'Scan' and the files will be named properly.

So just to be clear, here are the steps I have to take to do a batch scan now:
1) Change the "dummy file" to the proper root
2) Click 'Batch Scan'
3) Open the folder that I told Silverfast to save the files into
4) Click on the "dummy file"
5) Click 'Scan'

And here is what it used to be, not too long ago:
1) Click 'Batch Scan'
2) Click on most recent scan
3) Click 'Scan'

I'm sorry to keep bringing up how things "used to be", but I do it because it makes it clear that it worked at some point! I don't know how software development works but is not simple just to look back at the old code and repeat the old process?

Thanks for your understanding.

[LSI_Ketelhohn]

Dear customer,

We had to make some adjustments for other customer's workflows.
We trying to find a way to do this which fits the most workflows.
We continue trying to improve SilverFast.

Kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn.