Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: E-3 problems.

Subject: [OM] Re: E-3 problems.
From: "Timpe, Jim" <Jim.Timpe@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:08:42 -0800
Last I communicated with him yesterday he was setting about trying to
duplicate everything he did when this occurred to see if he could
isolate the source problem.  He hasn't gotten back to me yet.

-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Moose
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:26 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: E-3 problems.


Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I also have a hard time believing that that camera can't see what it 
> was
> displaying only minutes ago.  The scenario doesn't seem to make much 
> sense.  The directory would have to be damaged some time between
viewing 
> the last image on the camera and removing the card.
>   
- The sketchy report indicates that more than one different card was 
involved, so the chances of hardware failure there are extremely low.

- Use of the "preview" feature is mentioned. What isn't mentioned is 
whether this is literal or a mis-statement. "Preview" is the display of 
the image immediately after it is taken and need not necessarily 
indicate that the image is on the card. It may be, probably is, from the

buffer. "Review" is going back to a previous image. Review must read the

image from the card, thus indicating that it was successfully written. 
It is thus, from a diagnostic point of view, much different than
preview.

- If review was indeed tried before ejecting the card and could not 
retrieve images after putting it back in, something has indeed happened 
in between.

- The logical way to troubleshoot is NOT to go ahead and do another 
client shoot.

1. Take a few test images, review them in camera.
2. Remove and replace the card in the camera and try review again. Write

down at least one file name.
3. Remove card and put it in the card reader.
4. Use the system file viewer, Windoze Explorer or Mac Finder, to view 
the contents of the card as file names.
5. Use whatever software was being used to view/copy files. Before doing

the copy:
   a. Check the settings for output directory against expectations of 
where the files should appear.
   b. Check settings to see if source files are to be erased from the 
card once copied.
6. Do a system wide search for one of the file names.

- That should isolate where the files are "going missing", leading to a 
similar process to isolate hardware, software or user error at the step 
where they disappear. Several good suggestions have already been made, 
but logical testing is the only way to isolate the problem for sure.
------------------------------
I have, as M. Vick wishes were true of other fights, no dog in this 
fight. I have, however done a bit of remote troubleshooting of computer 
issues and specifically of them as related to software I wrote.

My general rule, learned from hard experience, when something that works

everywhere else, but not in one particular location and/or with one 
particular person, is that it is caused by an unstated action or 
assumption. Usually something that is happening/being done, but not 
reported.

Over several programs and many years and incidents, I never found a 
problem with a unique user that was in my software. I don't think I 
recall any hardware failure either. Mostly operator error, occasional 
LAN admin errors and one bug in a major LAN OS that they eventually 
admitted to, but never fixed. I had to recode around that one.

People NEVER tell you the whole, blow-by-blow story unless you force 
them to walk through it one detail step at a time. Typical is walking 
through the process on the phone, hearing keystrokes when I've not said 
the next thing to do, asking what they are doing and hearing "Oh, just 
such and so. I always do that, so I didn't want to bother you with it." 
or some such nonsense. And that will turn out to be where the problem 
is. It's quite remarkable how we can make a change in some detail of a 
process without noticing it, then go on doing it the new way.

Unstated assumptions are the killer. As I recently noted and old timers 
will remember, there was the case here of the "bad" lens where the 
owner/complainer never thought to mention it had a 'protective" filter 
always mounted and it took months before anybody thought to ask.
----------------------

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================


This message (including any attachments) contains confidential 
and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee.  
Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on 
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may 
constitute a violation of law.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to 
this e-mail, and delete the message from your system.  If you 
have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender 
immediately. 
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz