Railfan Technology > Any Ideas for opening an old file?

I know this probably sounds stupid, but, sometime around 2004 ( I think ) I got a new 1 meg, HP, camera for free when I purchased a new laptop. The camera worked very well for a cheapo digital. I took many pictures and a few videos. Over time the computer crashed. Thankfully, everything was backed up and I recovered my pictures and had saved a few video files as well. The problem is whatever the program was for opening the video files, was lost, so I haven't been able to find anything to open them with. I believe there may have been a few rail vids in those files but until I get this issue solved I'll never know.
Any help would be appreciated.

Rich

On a Mac: Right click and choose Get Info, or run the "file" command against the file from the command line. Either one *night" tell you the file format, which would be a start toward finding a progrm which will open it.

On Linux: Run the "file" command against the file from the command line. (It will probably have a better "file" command the the Mac.

On Microsoft Windows: There's nothing built-in, but I think there are similar programs, and ports of "file". Or send it to a friend who has a Mac or Linux.

Another possibility: try uploading it to YouTube. It's in their interest to be able to decode as many video formats as possible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/16 23:29 by clem.

clem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On a Mac: Right click and choose Get Info, or run
> the "file" command against the file from the
> command line. Either one *night" tell you the file
> format, which would be a start toward finding a
> progrm which will open it.
>
> On Linux: Run the "file" command against the file
> from the command line. (It will probably have a
> better "file" command the the Mac.
>
> On Microsoft Windows: There's nothing built-in,
> but I think there are similar programs, and ports
> of "file". Or send it to a friend who has a Mac or
> Linux.
>
> Another possibility: try uploading it to YouTube.
> It's in their interest to be able to decode as
> many video formats as possible.

Thanks, Clem. Should've mentioned it's MS Windows. Currently Using Windows 10. Couldn't get XP or that crappy 8.1 to do it either.

Rich

On Windows you can right click and it will give you possible choices or you can choose

Google is your friend.  Know what operating system you had, the software you had and the file extension, the part after the "."

Then google then  that information with some thing like running .xxx files under XP etc converting windows 3,1 files to XP
I did a quick search and found a laundry list of possible solutions, not to be smart but you can't google opening old files on an old computer.


Bob

It might help if you find out the exact model of the HP camera in question. With that information, you might be able to find technical specs of the camera on what format it uses to store photo/video. For example, MJPEG (Motion JPEG) was one format that was used often, until compression algorithms became more sophisticated. You might want to get that information first before focusing your efforts on operating system issues.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It might help if you find out the exact model of
> the HP camera in question. With that information,
> you might be able to find technical specs of the
> camera on what format it uses to store
> photo/video. For example, MJPEG (Motion JPEG) was
> one format that was used often, until compression
> algorithms became more sophisticated. You might
> want to get that information first before focusing
> your efforts on operating system issues.

Of course I gave the camera away along with the installation CD about ten years ago because I wanted a better camera. MJPEG sounds familiar but, I can't be sure. I thought that it would be a simple fix but it doesn't look like it.
Thanks all for your help!
Rich

Playing videos or even audio files under any version of Windows is finding the right 'plugin' to whatever player you are using to decode that file type.  Whether it's a .MOV or .MP4 or .AVI or a bunch of other file types, it is likely that it's only a CODEC needed for the player software on your computer.  First, find out what the file type is...the 3 or 4 letters past the period in the file name.  Then do a Google search for 'xxx CODEC yyyyyy' where xxx is the file type and yyyyy is the video player you are using, such as Windows Media Player. 

Unfortunately, new encoding algorithms as well as improved technology requires that video players have to be updated somewhat regularly to 'keep up' with the technology.  Windows XP users are fighting a losing battle as the updated CODECs aren't being made as XP compatible.  One of my friends still running XP found out the hard way that he can't play newer videos on Facebook for that very reason!  In short, there's no benefit to the software vendors to support XP computers.  It would be like expecting General Motors to make new parts for 1960 automobiles, or adapters to put engines from the 1960s in 2016 production cars.  It'll never happen.

BRAtkinson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be like expecting General Motors to make
> new parts for 1960 automobiles, or adapters to put
> engines from the 1960s in 2016 production cars. 
> It'll never happen.

I get this answer all the time from my more tech savvy friends and associates, and frankly, the analogy is not very good.  In many cases, you CAN get brand new parts for that 1960 car, and if not, you can likely get one from a specialty manufacturer or from a salvage yard, Hemmings Motor News etc.  Heck, you can still get or make parts to repair a Model T.  Despite four generations of GM automatic transmission fluid, you can still put the fluid for your 2016 Caddy in a 1950 Oldsmobile and it will work just fine.  It's called backwards compatibility, and it's something that the computer people refuse to do because they would would rather screw their customers and render their previous investment completely worthless.  I have thrown away two perfectly good functioning computers since 2000 for the simple reason that they are no longer capable of serving any real purpose. Meanwhile, my 1999 pickup, and my 1972 Chevelle continue to function as well as the day they were built.  AND, yes Virginia, GM DOES still sell replacement Small Block Chevy complete engines (design dates from 1955), AND they will will sell you a complete computerized fuel injected LS series V8 complete with engine controllers and emissions systems made specifically to drop in your classic Chevelle or 57 Bel Air or whatever.   There is absolutely ZERO reason for ANY Windows based program to not  operate on ANY Windows machine except for pure greed. Just another reason why I generally love computers, but hate the people that design them. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/16 07:11 by junctiontower.

junctiontower Wrote:
-  In many cases, you CAN
> get brand new parts for that 1960 car, and if not,
> you can likely get one from a specialty
> manufacturer or from a salvage yard, Hemmings
> Motor News etc.

Not to start a pissing contest...
While casting more engine blocks using a mold created in 1955 or so is feasable, doing so on a small volume basis is extremely costly to do, as well as purchasing said new block.  And yes, I'm quite familiar with the 265.  A great little engine in its day...the 283 and 327 more so...especially the 327.  Because the market for old car parts is small, any still existing parts as well as reproductions are extremely costly.  However, old cars are 'fixed targets' where nothing changes from day to day...or year...or decade.  Small companies can produce 1957 Chevy bumpers and make a modest living at it.  For a company like GM to do so, the overhead expenses of keeping the stamping molds and large-company corporate expense make it unprofitable to do so. 

Keeping software up to date in todays internet environent gets more difficult by the day. The legions of unscrupulous crooks trying to steal your personal information or credit cards or lock your computer and force you to pay a ransom, increases daily.  Having to pay a staff of, say, 40 people at Microsoft, another 15 or so at large software vendors like Adobe, and another 100 or so at each of the internet security vendors like Norton and McAfee just to keep Windows XP users afloat is akin to throwing ones money away.  Stockholders of those corporations get very upset to see any sums of money wasted on supporting a sinking ship like Windows XP.

On the other side of the coin, between the likes of Microsoft and other software vendors of all types, creating and maintaining a continuously changing/enhancing/CPU-sucking environment is exactly what is required to keep a steady cash flow in the corporation.  When I look at all the bloat-ware capabilities packed into Microsoft Office these days, I'm convinced that 95% of the features will not be used by most corporate and personal users.  But, by continuously enhancing the product, they can both generate upgrade sales and drop older versions that work on previous releases of Windows.  I was pleasantly surprised when Office 2010 installed flawlessly on my XP computer.  I highly doubt, though, that older versions like Office 2006 would run in Windows 8 much less Windows 10.  That way, MS gets a 'double dip' income by continually upgrading Windows and Office.  The problem with that philosophy is it doesn't generate a continous income, but more sporadic consistent with each product upgrade cycle.  Considering that Adobe now has a guaranteed monthly income from 'rental revenue' and in return the users get the latest & greatest software leads me to believe that will likely be the wave of the future.  Internet security/antivirus software vendors have long used annual subscription fees to provide a level to increasing annual/monthly income stream.  I think Microsoft will continue that trend with Windows...just my 2 cents worth.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/16 13:57 by BRAtkinson.

VLC player can generally play most video types \?

Bob

rag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cchan006 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It might help if you find out the exact model
> of
> > the HP camera in question. With that
> information,
> > you might be able to find technical specs of
> the
> > camera on what format it uses to store
> > photo/video. For example, MJPEG (Motion JPEG)
> was
> > one format that was used often, until
> compression
> > algorithms became more sophisticated. You might
> > want to get that information first before
> focusing
> > your efforts on operating system issues.
>
> Of course I gave the camera away along with the
> installation CD about ten years ago because I
> wanted a better camera. MJPEG sounds familiar but,
> I can't be sure. I thought that it would be a
> simple fix but it doesn't look like it.
> Thanks all for your help!
> Rich

If you think it's MJPEG or its derivative, try playing the files with Quicktime. It's a free Apple product that's supported on both Mac OS (both the Classic and OS X) and Windows. If you are able to play it, then the file can be edited by paying for Quicktime which will turn your Quicktime Player into Quicktime Pro - then you can covert the file to a format that a modern editor can understand, or do basic cut/split within Quicktime Pro. This also applies to other video formats besides MJPEG, since Quicktime supported quite a number for formats back in the day.

Back in those Dark Ages of video, both Microsoft and Apple were stuck at supporting MPEG-1 as MPEG-2 (used for DVDs) had licensing issues where only certain video editors that paid the proper licenses (i.e. expensive) supported MPEG-2 editing. Third party developers were providing new codecs based on the evolving MPEG4 standard (DivX, Xvid, etc) then Apple's had their own version of MPEG4, and Microsoft with WMV7 and WMV8) before the now-popular H.264 and VC-1 codecs were finalized.

"Innovation" in the commercial space is often chaotic, and I think this is an example of that. Had the video codec standards been developed in the more disciplined academic space, maybe consumers would have suffered less, although they wouldn't have gotten the better quality codecs sooner than they did.

Just a little perspective before we rant against Microsoft and other tech behemoths.