Sort by image size actualy sort by width

Bugs and Suggestions in XnView Classic which have been resolved

Moderators: XnTriq, xnview

Post Reply
User avatar
B.Douille
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Hte Savoie - France

Sort by image size actualy sort by width

Post by B.Douille »

In the browser view, when using the sort tool there is an option to sort by image size. It looked useful to classify images from different sources but actualy not.
Tell me if I'm wrong but I understand it as resolution in nb of pixels so an image 639x481 should be placed after one in 640x480:
639 x 479 = 306081
639 x 481 = 307359
640 x 480 = 307200

I can't see any difference with "by image width" in last version.
marsh
XnThusiast
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 6:31 am

Post by marsh »

The functions are a little different. You're right, it doesn't multiply those values.
With 'sort by Image size': it is arranged in order of width, then secondarily by height.
With 'sort by Image width": it is arranged in order of width, then secondarily by name.
User avatar
B.Douille
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Hte Savoie - France

Post by B.Douille »

marsh wrote:With the new B6 'sort by Image width": it is arranged in order of width, then secondarily by name.
The 2 new options in are right, allowing to sort easily by Portrait/Landscape.
marsh wrote:With 'sort by Image size': it is arranged in order of width, then secondarily by height.
Is this one (the way it works) still justified?

May I suggest to either rename it "Width/Height" to best reflect the expected result or apply a change to sort by Resolution and then by Name.
I like the last idea as it looks like a usefull way of sorting per source (I can see any other way to sort/filter per camera make & model right now).
marsh
XnThusiast
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 6:31 am

Post by marsh »

B.Douille wrote: May I suggest to either rename it "Width/Height" to best reflect the expected result or apply a change to sort by Resolution and then by Name.
I like the last idea as it looks like a usefull way of sorting per source (I can see any other way to sort/filter per camera make & model right now).
It has changed. It looks like values are multiplied.
User avatar
B.Douille
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Hte Savoie - France

Post by B.Douille »

marsh wrote:
B.Douille wrote: May I suggest to either rename it "Width/Height" to best reflect the expected result or apply a change to sort by Resolution and then by Name.
It has changed. It looks like values are multiplied.
:) Great improvement, thanks!
Is there any second criteria for sorting? I wonder it it's file name but there are different results depending on sort criteria. Here is an exemple using images of same size and orientation:
Sort by image width (same as dir /b /on):
12/06/2005 10:11 30710 -000.jpg
21/06/2005 18:51 31650 Fibre à Böege 1.jpg
21/06/2005 18:47 36866 Fibre Acome G652b.jpg
23/05/2005 14:49 38085 Fuite -1.jpg

Sort by image size:
12/06/2005 10:11 30710 -000.jpg
21/06/2005 18:47 36866 Fibre Acome G652b.jpg
21/06/2005 18:51 31650 Fibre à Böege 1.jpg
23/05/2005 14:49 38085 Fuite -1.jpg

Rgds
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 33850
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Post by xnview »

B.Douille wrote:
marsh wrote:
B.Douille wrote: May I suggest to either rename it "Width/Height" to best reflect the expected result or apply a change to sort by Resolution and then by Name.
It has changed. It looks like values are multiplied.
:) Great improvement, thanks!
Is there any second criteria for sorting? I wonder it it's file name but there are different results depending on sort criteria. Here is an exemple using images of same size and orientation:
Sort by image width (same as dir /b /on):
12/06/2005 10:11 30710 -000.jpg
21/06/2005 18:51 31650 Fibre à Böege 1.jpg
21/06/2005 18:47 36866 Fibre Acome G652b.jpg
23/05/2005 14:49 38085 Fuite -1.jpg

Sort by image size:
12/06/2005 10:11 30710 -000.jpg
21/06/2005 18:47 36866 Fibre Acome G652b.jpg
21/06/2005 18:51 31650 Fibre à Böege 1.jpg
23/05/2005 14:49 38085 Fuite -1.jpg

Rgds
Yes it's filename, but it's strange that result are different!
Pierre.
User avatar
B.Douille
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Hte Savoie - France

Post by B.Douille »

xnview wrote: Yes it's filename, but it's strange that result are different!
Maybe the character set used is different so "à" and "A" do not have the same weight in one set and the other.

I tested further and found it's not consistently the same result. I used files with similar names (dates, numeric). All images but 1 have the same size (2048x1536) 2 are in portrait.
Change the sort option and repeat the same "Image size" 2 times or more, switching to Detail view, sort again, back to Thumbnail view and you can see the files in Portrait format are always grouped together but not always at the same place. Here is a detailled list with File date/size/names and image dimensions:

03/01/2007 16:01 116909 2006-12-25_205455_Noel_Boege.jpg 768x1024
25/12/2006 17:47 217527 2006-12-25_174648_Noel_Boege.JPG 2048x1536
-> (3rd & 4th positions)
25/12/2006 17:46 893708 2006-12-25_174658_Noel_Boege.JPG 2048x1536
-> (4th & 5th positions)
25/12/2006 17:52 916366 2006-12-25_175204_Noel_Boege.JPG 2048x1536
25/12/2006 17:49 923507 2006-12-25_174906_Noel_Boege.JPG 1536x2048 -> (5th position on 1st sort)
25/12/2006 17:56 894446 2006-12-25_175642_Noel_Boege.JPG 1536x2048 -> (6th position on 1st sort)
25/12/2006 17:53 917358 2006-12-25_175318_Noel_Boege.JPG 2048x1536
25/12/2006 17:54 299536 2006-12-25_175342_Noel_Boege.JPG 2048x1536
User avatar
B.Douille
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Hte Savoie - France

Sort by size OK but no second order when all image same size

Post by B.Douille »

I re-tested with RC2: pb still.
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 33850
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Sort by size OK but no second order when all image same

Post by xnview »

B.Douille wrote:I re-tested with RC2: pb still.
Strange, i've fixed it, could you send me some test files?
Pierre.
User avatar
B.Douille
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Hte Savoie - France

Post by B.Douille »

Details found as I prepared files for Pierre:
- If you see the pb with 10 files in a folder and you remove or add some, the result could be completely different and even disappear. Even images having a completely different resolution (print screens) or a zip file may intereact in the sort result.
- By default sort is in ascending order, if you select "Descending" you may see the problem. Select back "Ascending" and the result could be different as the initial order.
User avatar
foxyshadis
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:57 am

Post by foxyshadis »

I think the only issue is that there is no secondary sort, so things are randomly sorted within the same dimensions. Name would presumably be the most intuitive fallback, the others seem to use it, as long as xnview doesn't have selectable secondary sorts. The actual sort by size part is working fine.
User avatar
B.Douille
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Hte Savoie - France

Post by B.Douille »

It works ok in RC3 / final release of 1.90. Nice feature
Thks
Post Reply