Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2009 August 27

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 27

Sony Vegas, memory problems?

I've been using Sony Vegas for the last year or so on the same computer, and I've only recently had any serious trouble with it. I'm working with a relatively large project (about 40 mins, many small videos, no HD content, some 300k .jpegs, mp3 soundtrack) and while I can preview and edit it alright (I had a couple problems where the mp3s were imported incorrectly, and as so made no sound in the preview, but it was fixed by reinserting them after deleted the file that sony makes), although I need to turn down the preview quality to reduce lag.

My problem comes when I try to render it (I'm using a Youtube style .avi render that I've used about 50 times before for shorter videos). At first I couldn't figure out what the problem was because the program would just exit instantly, or freeze after a couple percent (progress was very slow), but by looking at task manager it became apparent that the program was wrestling with memory resources.

Vegas will take up to 1,000,000 K in the process monitor, which my computer can handle (physical memory goes up to about 80%) but it keeps on dropping and giving the appearance of "reloading", during which time Vegas will appear to freeze. If I keep the focus on Vegas and make sure that nothing else is running, I can stop it from "losing hold" of the memory for the most part, but rendering still crashes. If I cut the project in half (which is well within the limits of other projects I have done) I can keep the rendering from crashing instantaneously, but it will still crash later on, and it takes insanely long to get even 10% done.

Why is Vegas "battling" for memory like that, when I clearly have enough, and why is it crashing on renders that I've always been able to do in the past? Any help is appreciated, thanks! 210.254.117.186 (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that some higher priority process periodically demands large amounts of memory. Try using the Task Manager to kill off all nonessential processes, and see if rendering runs after that. If so, restart the computer and go through and kill off processes one at a time, and retry rendering after each, until you find the culprit. StuRat (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

MSO 2003 Excel won't open directly from a folder in XP

Win XP, MSO 2003

All other Office applications automatically load a document if I open it from a folder.

However, for spreadsheets Excel itself opens, but then does not open the document. I have to manually load the document from within the Excel application in order to use it.

PPTs, Docs, etc are all operating as usual. This problem started this morning during routine use of the software.

Any ideas?

Spreadsheets are still associated with Excel in My Computer. Double-clicking the spreadsheet loads Excel but not the file. Files must be loaded manually from within Excel. Reinstall of MS Office and restart of the PC did not solve this problem.

I'm stumped. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In Tools/Options/General tab, check that "Ignore other applications" is not ticked. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Try right-click and "Open with" and then select Excel and see if that works. It might be that the association is still to Excel, but it doesn't have the %1 on the end of the path to Excel so it's not passing the file across to it. "Open with" (and saving it if it as the default if it works) might fix this is if that's the case. ZX81 ^talk 12:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OP here, AndrewWTaylor's suggestion was on the money. I have no idea how the hell that option got ticked, but everything's back to normal now. Thank you! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

what are the underlying server's protocol

as the subject. thanks in advance!

I'm not really sure what you're asking, here. If you meant to ask which protocols the Wikipedia servers use to connect to the internet, then the answer is HTTP for the standard ones and HTTPS for the secure ones. Many servers also have an SSH channel open for administrative purposes. See Internet Protocol Suite for more common protocols. --Link ^(t•c•m) 06:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The question stuck me when I read the rfc 2616 about HTTP/1.1.the origin is:"A more complicated situation occurs when one or more intermediaries are present in the request/response chain. There are three common forms of intermediary: proxy, gateway, and tunnel. A proxy is a forwarding agent, receiving requests for a URI in its absolute form, rewriting all or part of the message, and forwarding the reformatted request toward the server identified by the URI. A gateway is a

receiving agent, acting as a layer above some other server(s) and, if necessary, translating the requests to the underlying server’s protocol. A tunnel acts as a relay point between two connections without changing the messages; tunnels are used when the communication needs to pass through an intermediary (such as a firewall) even when the intermediary cannot understand the contents of the messages. request chain --------------------------------------> UA -----v----- A -----v----- B -----v----- C -----v----- O <------------------------------------- response chain

Okay, they're talking about a Gateway (telecommunications), which means that the "underlying server's protocol" could be basically ANY network protocol. Realistically though, they're talking about HTTP/1.1 in this case, so they're talking about protocols at Layer 5 and above of the OSI Model. I wouldn't worry about it too much: it's usually HTTP, but it could also be TLS or something else.

Also, please sign your edits with four tildas (~). Indeterminate (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

.m2ts Files in iMovie

I have recently been sent a disk containing .m2ts files shot on a recent holiday, but can't import them to iMovie to start editing. I have seen on a mac forum that voltaic software will convert the files to something readable. I just wanted to know if there is something free that can do this and what it would be best to be converting to.

Many thanks 94.3.69.124 (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Scanning Microfilm

I've got a bunch of old microfilms and was wondering if there was any way of scanning them? They're bits of card with a small window in containing the microfilm. I have tried scanning them using my standard flatbed scanner (using the highest resolution - 9600 dpi) and it's better than nothing but I really need a higher resolution. Is there any way I can magnify these things to scan them? I know you can get professional equipment to do this but I only want to scan a dozen or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.180.73 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure its microfilm? Sounds more like they are Photographic_slides. If they are in fact slides you will want a special scanner like the ones found hereto do it yourself. Since you only have a few you might want to look for a shop that does it. These people say they will do it for US$0.16 per slide, no idea if that it a good rate or not. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are lucky your library will have a mircroform reader with a scanner attached so that you can digitize it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an aperture card. (That's a horrible image in the article— I can do better) ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I need a shortcut.

Is there a "keyboard shortcut" for the "back button" in the Safari web browser? I'm using OS 10.5, on a MacBook. 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (signing) Bus stop (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=42951

Press delete? does it work? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow -- it does seem to work. That's really beautiful. I have to experiment with that. Thanks! Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Command-Left Bracket works for me. Dismas|^(talk) 22:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow -- Command, Left Bracket works too! Great! And an interesting thing is that Command, Right Bracket moves browser windows forward again. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a weird artifact - Mac keyboards do not have a "Backspace" button. That purpose is served by the "delete" key (contrary to logic - the other delete key on the Mac keyboard has a forward-pointer arrow, but the two "delete" keys do different things). Anyway, in some cases, they are mapped to the same command. Noting that on other platforms (ones with more intuitive user-interfaces, /rant), that "Delete" key is a "Back" or "Backspace" button - so it makes perfect sense to press "Back" to go back in a web browser. The Mac interface tries to clone this behavior, and the result is... "why on earth would you press delete to move back one page?" Nimur (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I use Apple+Left-arrow to go back a page and Apple+right-arrow to go forward. 15:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing -- that works too! Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OCR program that can screen scrape

Hi, Is there a free tool that can scrape screen for text? For example to text some Google books paragraphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.86.220 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Very small windows when I click on a link

A few days ago my computer started opening very small windowxs when I click on a link, such as a desktop shortcut or the results of a Google search; but not when I click on links in Wikipedia. The windows are too small to see any of the content. How can I increase the default size of these windows please? I have XP and IE8. I know I can increase the window to full screen, and I know I can drag the sides of the window to make it bigger, but its the default size I want to increase. I have restarted the computer a few times since the problem started - no effect. I have run anti-virus scans, nothing found. 78.146.255.137 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Try sizing your browser as you wish, then shut it down. Does it behave when you next click a link? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

sounds like some sort of virus / adware crap. They do things like opening unwanted windows and alter google search page results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way that I can make my windows xp account visable only by pressing ctrl alt del?

Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 22:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you use Windows XP Home and want to get rid of the welcome screen? That's possible - go to "Control Panel -> User Accounts -> Change the way users log on or off" and untick "Use the Welcome screen". Then you need to press Ctrl-Alt-Del on startup and type your username and password, as you would do when using a school or work computer. If that's not what you want, you need to be more specific. Xenon54 / talk / 22:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

i want to hide my account so my parents dont see it.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 22:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you can do that, but you'll have to do some registry editing so be careful or you can totally mess up the whole computer. More information (at your own risk) here ZX81 ^talk 23:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read about security through obscurity. One of the tenets of modern information security is that the best place to hide something is out in the open - true data protection comes by design, not by camouflage. If you have certain files or behaviors you need to protect, you should read about encryption and file permissions; these techniques are more robust than simply hiding your account-name at the login screen. Nimur (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Google Book work around

I'm trying to upload various public domain images to Commons from old books for use in articles. Google Books does not allow you to "save image as", so the only way I know to get the largest image possible is to go to full screen in my browser and then play with ctrl+ or cntrl- until I get the maximum image I can that is still within the screens borders, then hit the print screen button, then save the screen, crop the image from the screenshot and then upload it. There's got to be a way to get around the ?ajax? to get the full image at highest quality. Well maybe there isn't. Anyway, that's my question—is there a work around?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The google document is a PDF based on a book scan. I think the only two options are as you're doing it now, or download the PDF and do a screengrab when viewing the file with Acrobat. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I just figured it out! If you go to "plain text" from the links provided in Google Books the image becomes savable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Plain text gives you the plain text, yes. Download (top right when looking at a page) gives you the PDF. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but why would I need to download the pdf if I can save the image in its full version with "save image as" from the plain text version. Am I missing something? My understanding, basic as it is, is that when you take a screenshot, it is equivalent to a photograph of the screen, so your quality is however close you can get, whereas when you "save image as", your computer is downloading the source image, so it takes whatever full resolution the original has (or allows).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick experiment I've just done with the first image in this book gave me a fairly tiny PNG using your technique. If I download the PDF, I can get a much larger much sharper image; expanding the PNG to the same size as I can get the PDF gives me a wretched, fuzzy image. So I'm thinking they're creating the PNG at a certain size on the fly, and it ain't a better way to go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Then that answers the question and it's time for me to go back and reupload a better version at Commons of the image I uploaded earlier, if it works:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Different books have different license permissions. Books which do not have a "plain text" link probably are not licensed for machine-readable formats (or are copyrighted, or otherwise protected). Technically, you are probably violating the terms of use if you screen-grab or otherwise attempt to perform optical character recognition on that book. (This is a form of analog hole and is a major reason why digital rights management is inherently flawed). Nimur (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made no agreement with Google; there is no contract, shrink wrapped or otherwise and no terms of use I must abide by at law. I must comply with copyright law and I know copyright law and upload nothing to Commons that's post 1923. Neither here nor there but Google is the probably the most massive copyright violator in the world through Google books.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you know - Wikipedia has an article on everything! Mistake (criminal law), and Ignorantia juris non excusat. Nimur (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nice but you missed the part where you cited any legal statute, doctrine or precedent that I am making a mistake about or that I am ignorant of. If this was a complaint, I'd be making a pre-answer motion to dismiss since you had failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Google Books Terms of Use, and Google Books API Terms of Use. I am not a lawyer, and the Reference Desk does not provide legal advice, so we can't evaluate whether your particular actions violate any contract. But, we also have a policy here of not assisting blatant copyright violation. Nimur (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nimur, the first is a partnership program content hosting services agreement that must be agreed to and the second is for Google Code Labs, another contract that those wishing to participate in must agree to. Neither have anything to do with browsing Google Books. As a practicing attorney, I do hope you will always read contracts and read them carefully before executing them, whether by signature or other volitional act requiring a "meeting of the minds" with regard to a set of material terms that have been provided to you. Now please go back and review what this thread is about. It is not about assisting anyone with violating copyrights. It is about the best methodology for saving to one's computer images from books so that they are of the highest resolution. Any user can take a screenshot of any page of any book on Google Books whether it is copyrighted or not. Each person doing so is bound by and subject to copyright law, which has nothing to do with the best methodology for downloading images. If you'll notice in the OP, it starts with "I'm trying to upload various public domain images to Commons..." (emphasis added).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)