Software for Kodak DC 210 Does Not Work With Windows XP?

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by JEFF TURNER, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. JEFF  TURNER

    JEFF TURNER Guest

    Hello.

    I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I recently
    upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro., and the
    software for the camera no longer works.

    Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
    this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
    reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to process
    the images, but maybe there is a better way.

    Thanks.

    Jeff Turner

    Gates Mills, Ohio
     
    JEFF TURNER, Mar 3, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. JEFF  TURNER

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 +0000, JEFF TURNER wrote:

    > Hello.
    >
    > I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I
    > recently upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro.,
    > and the software for the camera no longer works.
    >
    > Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
    > this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
    > reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to
    > process the images, but maybe there is a better way.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > Jeff Turner
    >
    > Gates Mills, Ohio


    I have a DC 210+. I use it with a card reader on a Linux system. So
    what's the issue? Faster file transfers and save the camera battery -
    seems like a deal to me (actually I have an AC adapter too). Get yourself
    an inexpensive CF USB card reader (or a multi unit if you think you might
    do other cards sometime). Crucial makes several for good prices, or visit
    your local walmart.
     
    ray, Mar 3, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. JEFF  TURNER

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:33:35 -0800, trouble wrote:

    > You may be the only person on Earth with a Kodak digital camera that
    > still works one day past the expiration of its warranty.


    Hardly. My DC210+ is still working and so is my (more recent) P850. The
    DC210 is a good camera with several redeeming qualities: it's paid for,
    it takes decent 1mp photos (I've printed to 8x10 - they come out nicely),
    it has an available AC adapter (which came with mine), it uses CF cards
    instead of a proprietary expensive card, it's rugged, Kodak used to have
    an SDK you could download and use for free (may or may not still be
    available, but I have it), it's dependable and it's a nice size.
     
    ray, Mar 4, 2009
    #3
  4. JEFF  TURNER

    dwight Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:33:35 -0800, trouble wrote:
    >
    >> You may be the only person on Earth with a Kodak digital camera that
    >> still works one day past the expiration of its warranty.

    >
    > Hardly. My DC210+ is still working and so is my (more recent) P850. The
    > DC210 is a good camera with several redeeming qualities: it's paid for,
    > it takes decent 1mp photos (I've printed to 8x10 - they come out nicely),
    > it has an available AC adapter (which came with mine), it uses CF cards
    > instead of a proprietary expensive card, it's rugged, Kodak used to have
    > an SDK you could download and use for free (may or may not still be
    > available, but I have it), it's dependable and it's a nice size.


    My old Olympus 1.3MP camera with 2X digital zoom still works, too, but I
    wouldn't think of using it today. In fact, I still look back at the photos I
    took back in 2004 and wish that I could go back with today's cameras and do
    them over.

    Of course, I have no desire to return to Windows 98, either. Or black and
    white televisions.

    dwight
     
    dwight, Mar 4, 2009
    #4
  5. JEFF  TURNER

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:21:58 -0500, dwight wrote:

    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:33:35 -0800, trouble wrote:
    >>
    >>> You may be the only person on Earth with a Kodak digital camera that
    >>> still works one day past the expiration of its warranty.

    >>
    >> Hardly. My DC210+ is still working and so is my (more recent) P850. The
    >> DC210 is a good camera with several redeeming qualities: it's paid for,
    >> it takes decent 1mp photos (I've printed to 8x10 - they come out
    >> nicely), it has an available AC adapter (which came with mine), it uses
    >> CF cards instead of a proprietary expensive card, it's rugged, Kodak
    >> used to have an SDK you could download and use for free (may or may not
    >> still be available, but I have it), it's dependable and it's a nice
    >> size.

    >
    > My old Olympus 1.3MP camera with 2X digital zoom still works, too, but I
    > wouldn't think of using it today. In fact, I still look back at the
    > photos I took back in 2004 and wish that I could go back with today's
    > cameras and do them over.
    >
    > Of course, I have no desire to return to Windows 98, either. Or black
    > and white televisions.
    >
    > dwight


    I guess that would be a part of the difference. I look back at pictures I
    took with the DC210+ and wonder how I ever got such good looking photos -
    the modern equipment may surpass in resolution, but that's about it. I
    still use mine from time to time when I'm doing shoots for special events
    at the local library. They like to be able to print our photos 'on the
    spot' to give out to the kiddies - works fine.
     
    ray, Mar 4, 2009
    #5
  6. "JEFF TURNER" <> wrote in message
    news:Cidrl.45132$...
    > Hello.
    >
    > I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I
    > recently upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro.,
    > and the software for the camera no longer works.
    >
    > Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
    > this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
    > reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to
    > process the images, but maybe there is a better way.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > Jeff Turner
    >
    > Gates Mills, Ohio
    >

    Go and buy a decent digital camera and trash the Kodak.
     
    Hiram B Culpeper, Mar 4, 2009
    #6
  7. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember "JEFF TURNER"
    <> saying something like:

    >Hello.
    >
    >I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I recently
    >upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro., and the
    >software for the camera no longer works.
    >
    >Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
    >this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
    >reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to process
    >the images, but maybe there is a better way.


    If the old software actually installs ok on XP Pro, then do this...
    Go to the installation folder, right click on the .exe file and select
    properties. Select 'compatibility' and run it as if it's in W98.
    It might work, it might not.
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Mar 4, 2009
    #7
  8. JEFF  TURNER

    Guest

    On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER <> wrote:

    | I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I recently
    | upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro., and the
    | software for the camera no longer works.
    |
    | Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
    | this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
    | reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to process
    | the images, but maybe there is a better way.

    1.

    I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a full
    set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the computer
    via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This camera is so old
    I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full specs.

    Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add software
    to support the USB ports. This software would have at least included a driver.
    It often includes other things to let you browse pictures, edit them, etc.
    But this software will definitely NOT succeed at installing on XP if it is
    trying to install a USB driver. That is because XP already has USB drivers
    in it.

    If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for presenting its
    memory to the computer in the form of a small disk storage (just like a USB
    key/stick does ... and just like every camera I have used does), then you do
    not need ANY software on XP to at least get the pictures from the camera via
    the USB cable. You would then need to use other software to work with those
    pictures. But XP has more such software included than previous versions of
    Windows. Vista has even more if you want to go that route.

    So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without adding any
    software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is connected.

    2.

    I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to computer
    by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It doesn't run down the
    camera battery (or require yet another cable to power the camera). And it is
    faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF has the ability to be faster than
    other kinds of memory cards because of its 8-bit data path, but that does not
    mean every device that works with CF achieves such speeds.

    Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good investment.
    If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer, AND if yours has
    an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a front panel slot, then
    an internal memory card adapter might be an option. Both of my main desktop
    computers have them (but then, I build my own computers). All new computers
    I see in Best Buy and Walmart have them already integrated. Many laptops
    seem to have at least one memory card slot (usually just SD) these days.

    Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in the
    future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the USB
    adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC) protocol, and
    as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB (and the effective
    limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been made to work with the
    SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit SD to 2GB due to programmer
    errors). If you choose to buy a USB to memory card adapter, don't pay more
    than about $12 for it unless you see that it really has SDHC.

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
     
    , Mar 4, 2009
    #8
  9. JEFF  TURNER

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:25:18 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:

    > On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > | I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I
    > recently | upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP
    > Pro., and the | software for the camera no longer works. |
    > | Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to
    > use | this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory
    > card | reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want
    > to process | the images, but maybe there is a better way.
    >
    > 1.
    >
    > I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a
    > full set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the
    > computer via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This
    > camera is so old I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full
    > specs.


    Actually, it connects via a serial cable.


    >
    > Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add
    > software to support the USB ports. This software would have at least
    > included a driver. It often includes other things to let you browse
    > pictures, edit them, etc. But this software will definitely NOT succeed
    > at installing on XP if it is trying to install a USB driver. That is
    > because XP already has USB drivers in it.
    >
    > If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for
    > presenting its memory to the computer in the form of a small disk
    > storage (just like a USB key/stick does ... and just like every camera I
    > have used does), then you do not need ANY software on XP to at least get
    > the pictures from the camera via the USB cable. You would then need to
    > use other software to work with those pictures. But XP has more such
    > software included than previous versions of Windows. Vista has even
    > more if you want to go that route.
    >
    > So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without
    > adding any software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is
    > connected.
    >
    > 2.
    >
    > I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to
    > computer by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It
    > doesn't run down the camera battery (or require yet another cable to
    > power the camera). And it is faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF
    > has the ability to be faster than other kinds of memory cards because of
    > its 8-bit data path, but that does not mean every device that works with
    > CF achieves such speeds.
    >
    > Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good
    > investment. If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer,
    > AND if yours has an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a
    > front panel slot, then an internal memory card adapter might be an
    > option. Both of my main desktop computers have them (but then, I build
    > my own computers). All new computers I see in Best Buy and Walmart have
    > them already integrated. Many laptops seem to have at least one memory
    > card slot (usually just SD) these days.
    >
    > Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in
    > the future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the
    > USB adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC)
    > protocol, and as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB (and
    > the effective limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been made
    > to work with the SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit SD to
    > 2GB due to programmer errors). If you choose to buy a USB to memory
    > card adapter, don't pay more than about $12 for it unless you see that
    > it really has SDHC.


    Fine, but the DC210 uses CF cards.
     
    ray, Mar 4, 2009
    #9
  10. JEFF  TURNER

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:49:43 +0000, Deep Reset wrote:

    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >>>I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a
    >>>full
    >>>set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the
    >>>computer via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This
    >>>camera is so old
    >>>I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full specs.

    >>
    >> It's so old that it connects to the computer with a serial cable.

    >
    > Don't they all?


    USB is a specific form of serial. The serial cable used on the DC210 is
    not USB.
     
    ray, Mar 4, 2009
    #10
  11. "Deep Reset" <> wrote:
    ><> wrote in message
    >> It's so old that it connects to the computer with a serial cable.

    >
    >Don't they all?


    Well, strictly speaking in a technical sense yes (unless there are any
    cameras with a parallel or no port).
    However the vast majority of people mean RS-232 when they are talking
    about "serial", not USB.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Mar 4, 2009
    #11
  12. JEFF  TURNER

    Dave Cohen Guest

    wrote:
    > On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER <> wrote:
    >
    > | I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I recently
    > | upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro., and the
    > | software for the camera no longer works.
    > |
    > | Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
    > | this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
    > | reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to process
    > | the images, but maybe there is a better way.
    >
    > 1.
    >
    > I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a full
    > set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the computer
    > via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This camera is so old
    > I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full specs.
    >
    > Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add software
    > to support the USB ports. This software would have at least included a driver.
    > It often includes other things to let you browse pictures, edit them, etc.
    > But this software will definitely NOT succeed at installing on XP if it is
    > trying to install a USB driver. That is because XP already has USB drivers
    > in it.
    >
    > If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for presenting its
    > memory to the computer in the form of a small disk storage (just like a USB
    > key/stick does ... and just like every camera I have used does), then you do
    > not need ANY software on XP to at least get the pictures from the camera via
    > the USB cable. You would then need to use other software to work with those
    > pictures. But XP has more such software included than previous versions of
    > Windows. Vista has even more if you want to go that route.
    >
    > So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without adding any
    > software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is connected.
    >
    > 2.
    >
    > I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to computer
    > by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It doesn't run down the
    > camera battery (or require yet another cable to power the camera). And it is
    > faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF has the ability to be faster than
    > other kinds of memory cards because of its 8-bit data path, but that does not
    > mean every device that works with CF achieves such speeds.
    >
    > Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good investment.
    > If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer, AND if yours has
    > an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a front panel slot, then
    > an internal memory card adapter might be an option. Both of my main desktop
    > computers have them (but then, I build my own computers). All new computers
    > I see in Best Buy and Walmart have them already integrated. Many laptops
    > seem to have at least one memory card slot (usually just SD) these days.
    >
    > Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in the
    > future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the USB
    > adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC) protocol, and
    > as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB (and the effective
    > limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been made to work with the
    > SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit SD to 2GB due to programmer
    > errors). If you choose to buy a USB to memory card adapter, don't pay more
    > than about $12 for it unless you see that it really has SDHC.
    >

    Unfortunately winxp doesn't just recognize any device when connected via
    usb. The device has to be aware. Canon cameras do NOT assign a drive
    number when connected and are not listed under My Computer. You do get
    an entry in windows explorer and can access the images on the card but
    you do not see the folder structure on the device.
    Same is true of certain mp3 players, depends on whether device uses MTP
    or MSC protocol.
    My older canon A40 is not recognized by winxp, it probably came with
    some sort of driver but I no longer have it and just use the card reader.
    Dave Cohen
     
    Dave Cohen, Mar 5, 2009
    #12
  13. JEFF  TURNER

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:18:26 -0500, Dave Cohen wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> | I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I
    >> recently | upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP
    >> Pro., and the | software for the camera no longer works. |
    >> | Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to
    >> use | this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory
    >> card | reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want
    >> to process | the images, but maybe there is a better way.
    >>
    >> 1.
    >>
    >> I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a
    >> full set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the
    >> computer via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This
    >> camera is so old I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full
    >> specs.
    >>
    >> Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add
    >> software to support the USB ports. This software would have at least
    >> included a driver. It often includes other things to let you browse
    >> pictures, edit them, etc. But this software will definitely NOT succeed
    >> at installing on XP if it is trying to install a USB driver. That is
    >> because XP already has USB drivers in it.
    >>
    >> If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for
    >> presenting its memory to the computer in the form of a small disk
    >> storage (just like a USB key/stick does ... and just like every camera
    >> I have used does), then you do not need ANY software on XP to at least
    >> get the pictures from the camera via the USB cable. You would then
    >> need to use other software to work with those pictures. But XP has
    >> more such software included than previous versions of Windows. Vista
    >> has even more if you want to go that route.
    >>
    >> So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without
    >> adding any software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is
    >> connected.
    >>
    >> 2.
    >>
    >> I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to
    >> computer by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It
    >> doesn't run down the camera battery (or require yet another cable to
    >> power the camera). And it is faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF
    >> has the ability to be faster than other kinds of memory cards because
    >> of its 8-bit data path, but that does not mean every device that works
    >> with CF achieves such speeds.
    >>
    >> Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good
    >> investment. If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer,
    >> AND if yours has an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a
    >> front panel slot, then an internal memory card adapter might be an
    >> option. Both of my main desktop computers have them (but then, I build
    >> my own computers). All new computers I see in Best Buy and Walmart
    >> have them already integrated. Many laptops seem to have at least one
    >> memory card slot (usually just SD) these days.
    >>
    >> Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in
    >> the future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the
    >> USB adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC)
    >> protocol, and as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB
    >> (and the effective limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been
    >> made to work with the SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit
    >> SD to 2GB due to programmer errors). If you choose to buy a USB to
    >> memory card adapter, don't pay more than about $12 for it unless you
    >> see that it really has SDHC.
    >>

    > Unfortunately winxp doesn't just recognize any device when connected via
    > usb. The device has to be aware. Canon cameras do NOT assign a drive
    > number when connected and are not listed under My Computer. You do get
    > an entry in windows explorer and can access the images on the card but
    > you do not see the folder structure on the device. Same is true of
    > certain mp3 players, depends on whether device uses MTP or MSC protocol.
    > My older canon A40 is not recognized by winxp, it probably came with
    > some sort of driver but I no longer have it and just use the card
    > reader. Dave Cohen


    That's fine, but the DC210 does not use USB. It is an RS-232 serial cable.
     
    ray, Mar 5, 2009
    #13
  14. JEFF  TURNER

    Guest

    On 4 Mar 2009 19:22:45 GMT ray <> wrote:

    | Actually, it connects via a serial cable.

    Oh well.

    | Fine, but the DC210 uses CF cards.

    I'm sure he'd check that the adapter has a CF slot. I'm suggesting also check
    it for SDHC and maybe even SDXC (new) so that a future camera purchase will
    more likely work.

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
     
    , Mar 6, 2009
    #14
  15. JEFF  TURNER

    Guest

    On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:18:26 -0500 Dave Cohen <> wrote:

    | Unfortunately winxp doesn't just recognize any device when connected via
    | usb. The device has to be aware. Canon cameras do NOT assign a drive
    | number when connected and are not listed under My Computer. You do get
    | an entry in windows explorer and can access the images on the card but
    | you do not see the folder structure on the device.

    I've connected a Canon camera to a Linux system, and it came up as a drive.
    It didn't have letters like Windows, but Linux doesn't work that way. USB
    has a standard for how a drive should appear in the USB protocol. Windows
    should detect this and assign a letter. But maybe there are some cameras
    that do emulate a disk drive and some that don't.


    | Same is true of certain mp3 players, depends on whether device uses MTP
    | or MSC protocol.

    I don't know the specific protocols. I know my iPod Shuffle appears as a
    drive on Linux, with a size around 1GB.

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
     
    , Mar 6, 2009
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Matti Remonen

    Vegas 4 and SF 7 integration does not seem to work

    Matti Remonen, Dec 1, 2003, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    397
    HighPeaksVideo
    Dec 2, 2003
  2. Mike Kleiber

    Replacing audio part does NOT work with VirtualDub + DivX ??

    Mike Kleiber, Dec 7, 2003, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    647
    Bariloche
    Jan 15, 2004
  3. Mike Kleiber

    Clip/crop in TMPGEnc does not work

    Mike Kleiber, Aug 20, 2004, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    461
    Ken Maltby
    Aug 20, 2004
  4. JWSM
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,982
    Tacit
    Mar 18, 2005
  5. Roger

    DC 210 Software

    Roger, Jan 14, 2007, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    443
    John Turco
    Jan 21, 2007
  6. J.M. Burns
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    413
    tomcas
    Aug 12, 2003
  7. William Don**ly
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    506
    William Don**ly
    Dec 28, 2012
  8. William Don**ly
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    565
    J. Clarke
    Dec 28, 2012
Loading...