EXIF orientated thumbnails are smaller than they should

Ideas for improvements and requests for new features in XnView Classic

Moderators: XnTriq, xnview

Post Reply
User avatar
Olivier_G
XnThusiast
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Paris, France
Contact:

EXIF orientated thumbnails are smaller than they should

Post by Olivier_G » Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:24 pm

I just noticed that EXIF orientated thumbnails (ie: taken in portrait) are smaller than they should, because their longer dimensions have to fit both X and Y (they are stored not turned, and must fit both Portrait and Landscape).

Isn't it possible to directly create and store thumbnails with the right orientation and dimensions (based on 'EXIF orientation' setting)?
XnView would then delete such thumbnails when user changes 'EXIF orientation' setting (which is not supposed to happen regularly). Another solution could be to store a rotation flag on thumbnail creation and compare it against current 'EXIF Orientation' setting on display (and recreate if different).
=> Thumbnail size would be maximized and XnView would not have to rotate those thumbnails on-the-fly on every display (ie: faster).

V 1.90 <x>
Olivier

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 33449
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: EXIF orientated thumbnails are smaller than they should

Post by xnview » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:05 am

Olivier_G wrote:I just noticed that EXIF orientated thumbnails (ie: taken in portrait) are smaller than they should, because their longer dimensions have to fit both X and Y (they are stored not turned, and must fit both Portrait and Landscape).

Isn't it possible to directly create and store thumbnails with the right orientation and dimensions (based on 'EXIF orientation' setting)?
Yes, i have not store final thumbnail to be able to rotate it easily!
XnView would then delete such thumbnails when user changes 'EXIF orientation' setting (which is not supposed to happen regularly). Another solution could be to store a rotation flag on thumbnail creation and compare it against current 'EXIF Orientation' setting on display (and recreate if different).
=> Thumbnail size would be maximized and XnView would not have to rotate those thumbnails on-the-fly on every display (ie: faster).
If i change that, user should recreate thumbnails, but is it a problem :-) ??
Pierre.

User avatar
Olivier_G
XnThusiast
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Paris, France
Contact:

Re: EXIF orientated thumbnails are smaller than they should

Post by Olivier_G » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:33 am

xnview wrote:
Olivier_G wrote:XnView would then delete such thumbnails when user changes 'EXIF orientation' setting (which is not supposed to happen regularly). Another solution could be to store a rotation flag on thumbnail creation and compare it against current 'EXIF Orientation' setting on display (and recreate if different).
=> Thumbnail size would be maximized and XnView would not have to rotate those thumbnails on-the-fly on every display (ie: faster).
If i change that, user should recreate thumbnails, but is it a problem :-) ??
I think it would be fine (ie: the correct size advantage would be much greater than that small 'recreate' drawback in the long term use).

Olivier
PS: yes, I'm back... skimming through unread posts right now...

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 33449
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: EXIF orientated thumbnails are smaller than they should

Post by xnview » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:18 am

Olivier_G wrote:
xnview wrote:
Olivier_G wrote:XnView would then delete such thumbnails when user changes 'EXIF orientation' setting (which is not supposed to happen regularly). Another solution could be to store a rotation flag on thumbnail creation and compare it against current 'EXIF Orientation' setting on display (and recreate if different).
=> Thumbnail size would be maximized and XnView would not have to rotate those thumbnails on-the-fly on every display (ie: faster).
If i change that, user should recreate thumbnails, but is it a problem :-) ??
I think it would be fine (ie: the correct size advantage would be much greater than that small 'recreate' drawback in the long term use).

Olivier
PS: yes, I'm back... skimming through unread posts right now...
Now i'm too close to the release, so i would like to not change that :-)
Pierre.

User avatar
Olivier_G
XnThusiast
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Paris, France
Contact:

Re: EXIF orientated thumbnails are smaller than they should

Post by Olivier_G » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:08 pm

xnview wrote:Now i'm too close to the release, so i would like to not change that :-)
I agree with you... :mrgreen:
-> postponed.
Olivier

Post Reply