Need help getting my pics to display on the Sanyo 5600

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Cheffie - 11 Jun 2005 14:50 GMT

I think it must be some formatting issue. I have a 512m SD card in
the phone and when I put pictures on it some display and some do not.
I also cannot "set" them as wallpapers or ringer dispalys, the manual
sucks! Any help is appreciated

Reply to this Message

O/Siris - 13 Jun 2005 03:14 GMT

> I think it must be some formatting issue. I have a 512m SD card in
> the phone and when I put pictures on it some display and some do not.
> I also cannot "set" them as wallpapers or ringer dispalys, the manual
> sucks! Any help is appreciated

From what I understand, the SD card isn't treated as long-term memory,
and so the phone doesn't even look there for pics, ringers, apps,
anything.

Also, I think the phone can only display standard JPEG images.

Signature

RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

Reply to this Message

Cheffie - 13 Jun 2005 15:30 GMT

The phone does look there for media and some of the pictures show and
other don't I'm trying to figure out why and non of the ones that show
can be set as a background or tied to a ringer. I am trying to see if
there is limited size of color depth issues that are messing me up.
Some of the images taht will not display are smaller than those that
do. confusing?

>> I think it must be some formatting issue. I have a 512m SD card in
>> the phone and when I put pictures on it some display and some do not.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Also, I think the phone can only display standard JPEG images.

Reply to this Message

O/Siris - 15 Jun 2005 03:18 GMT

> The phone does look there for media and some of the pictures show and
> other don't I'm trying to figure out why and non of the ones that show
> can be set as a background or tied to a ringer. I am trying to see if
> there is limited size of color depth issues that are messing me up.
> Some of the images taht will not display are smaller than those that
> do. confusing?

Not confusing, really. But beyond my knowledge. The only thing I can
think of is to make sure they are regular JPEG files, not progressive
ones. But I don't know what that means, really. I just know someone
who said it made a difference.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Ludwig - 21 Jun 2005 02:57 GMT

In article <k06ra1hnmbt5pntqoqfl0r84obq0a8u001@4ax.com>,
jwoodchef@earthlink.net says...

Reply to this Message

O/Siris - 21 Jun 2005 07:07 GMT

> Maybe you shouldn't give advice if you don't know what you are talking
> about.

I see. So that whole plethora of responses you got was made more
confusing because I posted?

You weren't getting any responses. I took a shot at it. Sorry if that
upset you.

No, not really. I'm not. I think it's insulting and pathetic that
you'd treat someone who tried to help you like that.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Tinman - 21 Jun 2005 16:51 GMT

> "O/Siris" <rØbjvargas@comcâst.nêt> wrote in message
>> me up. Some of the images taht will not display are smaller than
>> those that do. confusing?
>
> Not confusing, really. But beyond my knowledge.

Based on the statements above, you are indeed confused. Trust me.

"Honest officer, I am *not* confused over how fast I was traveling. It's
merely beyond my knowledge."

> Maybe you shouldn't give advice if you don't know what you are talking
> about.

Maybe you should abide by your own advice.

Reply to this Message

O/Siris - 23 Jun 2005 04:23 GMT

> Maybe you should abide by your own advice.

You were quoting me, but the words were not mine. Those were the words
to which I was responding.

I offered up some advice I'd seen given out, and that seemed to have
helped in a similar situation. The OP seems to think he'd rather have
had no response at all.

What that "officer" analogy has to do with *anything* in this thread is
something only you, apparently, can determine. Or perhaps you have the
answer, and have simply opted not to reveal it for the mere sport of
knowing?

Signature

Reply to this Message

Tinman - 23 Jun 2005 16:44 GMT

>> Maybe you should abide by your own advice.
>
> You were quoting me, but the words were not mine. Those were the
> words to which I was responding.

No sh.t, Sherlock. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should have
been able to figure that out. Can't you tell the difference between ">"
and ">>?"

> I offered up some advice I'd seen given out, and that seemed to have
> helped in a similar situation. The OP seems to think he'd rather have
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> have the answer, and have simply opted not to reveal it for the mere
> sport of knowing?

<whatever>

The phrases I responded to were Ludwig's. What was so hard about that to
figure out? Regardless, it's the last time I'll ever back you up.
Perhaps Ludwig was right after-all, cuz when it came to deciphering who
was speaking to whom, you failed miserably.

Signature

Mike

Reply to this Message

Oleg O. - 23 Jun 2005 20:08 GMT

>No sh.t, Sherlock. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should have
>been able to figure that out. Can't you tell the difference between ">"
>and ">>?"

Tinman, you need to pay more attention. Ludwig didn't use ">" when
quoting O/Siris, so what you think he said was a part of O/Siris'
message, which I'm sure is within your ability to verify. IMO, this is
where you apologize to O/Siris.

But as far as I can tell, "Ludwig" <ludwig@chump.com> was not the OP
in this thread (who was "Cheffie" <jwoodchef@earthlink.net>), so O/Siris'
tirade was misdirected too. I think he owes an apology to the OP.

>The phrases I responded to were Ludwig's. What was so hard about that to
>figure out? Regardless, it's the last time I'll ever back you up.
>Perhaps Ludwig was right after-all, cuz when it came to deciphering who
>was speaking to whom, you failed miserably.

This is very funny to read, considering the above.

This thread is pathetic.

Unless it's me who's totally confused. And if that's the case, I
apologize.

Reply to this Message

Tinman - 23 Jun 2005 20:35 GMT

>> No sh.t, Sherlock. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should
>> have been able to figure that out. Can't you tell the difference
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> message, which I'm sure is within your ability to verify. IMO, this
> is where you apologize to O/Siris.

Yes, it certainly is! I do apologize. The first post I read in this
thread was "Ludwig's" and from that it appeared that all of the unquoted
text was his.

And I only responded due to "Ludwig's" sentence, "Maybe you shouldn't
give advice if you don't know what you are talking about." My comments
to the earlier, non-Ludwig, statements were because they seemed so
confusing; compared to--what I thought was--his closing sentence. He
didn't even quote--he just threw out his one-liner. (Note how this is
getting even more confusing.)

> This is very funny to read, considering the above.

Sure, laugh at others' expense! <g>

I thought I was posting in support of Osiris, and was a bit surprised at
his response to me. I shouldn't have even responded to "Ludwig," as I
have seen no other posts from him and my guess is that he threw out
flame bait--and got a hit.

> This thread is pathetic.
>
> Unless it's me who's totally confused. And if that's the case, I
> apologize.

IMO, the one who needs a whippin' would be "Ludwig."

Signature

Mike

Reply to this Message

Ludwig - 24 Jun 2005 01:55 GMT

>>> No sh.t, Sherlock. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should
>>> have been able to figure that out. Can't you tell the difference
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> IMO, the one who needs a whippin' would be "Ludwig."

Sorry about the quotes, it was not me that removed them. I was responding to
the post where osinus gave advice but admitted it was 'beyond his knowledge'
and that he didn't really know what it meant. I think some of you guys just
like reading your own words.

Reply to this Message

O/Siris - 24 Jun 2005 03:56 GMT

> Sorry about the quotes, it was not me that removed them. I was responding to
> the post where osinus gave advice but admitted it was 'beyond his knowledge'
> and that he didn't really know what it meant. I think some of you guys just
> like reading your own words.

Although you weren't the OP after all, I think my point stands.

Did *you* provide an answer to the problem? Did *anyone* else make an
attempt to resolve it? I speculated a bit because, otherwise, there was
nothing for the user. I made it clear it was only what I'd heard, and
offered no guarantee that it would work.

You appear to think there's something wrong with offering up something
where, otherwise, there was nothing. I disagree.

Signature

Reply to this Message

O/Siris - 24 Jun 2005 03:53 GMT

> The phrases I responded to were Ludwig's. What was so hard about that to
> figure out? Regardless, it's the last time I'll ever back you up.

From MANY Usenet eitquette sources:

"Summarization is best done by including appropriate quotes from the
original article."

See that second to last word? Mine was not the original article when it
came to the points you were discussing.

And, in case you'd rather read it for yourself, here is one such
etiquette source:

http://www.csam.montclair.edu/docs/Users_guide/news.html

Signature

Reply to this Message

Tinman - 24 Jun 2005 15:52 GMT

>> The phrases I responded to were Ludwig's. What was so hard about
>> that to figure out? Regardless, it's the last time I'll ever back
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "Summarization is best done by including appropriate quotes from the
> original article."

LOL

> See that second to last word? Mine was not the original article when
> it came to the points you were discussing.

<sigh> That's because Ludwig didn't quote properly...

Signature

Mike | If a million monkeys typed on a million
| keyboards for a million years, eventually all
| the works of Shakespeare would be produced.
| Thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.

Reply to this Message