I don't understand why people would want cameras to write long filenames anyway. They all name their files in robotic and boring fashion and the filenames are essentially meaningless nonces: all the actual lookup is always done via EXIF tags from some reader application.
Posted Nov 24, 2010 17:10 UTC (Wed) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106)
[Link]
It seems like the point would be to make cameras save pictures with ascii-art names depicting their contents, which would be arguably more useful than the robotic, boring names they use now.
ASCII Art file names
Posted Nov 25, 2010 7:49 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link]
It would be great until you took two pictures that gave the same ASCII-art representation but were different in some other important way. For example, astrophotographers who want to do image stacking would find it very inconvenient. So would people who use some bracketing options, like color balance bracketing or even exposure bracketing with 1/3 stop increments. Sequence numbers may be boring and uninformative, but they stop you from accidentally overwriting an important picture.