0.88: Batch-Convert - Guetzli JPEG not working

*** Please report new bugs here! ***

Moderators: helmut, XnTriq, xnview, Dreamer

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 37883
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France

Re: 0.88: Batch-Convert - Guetzli JPEG not working

Post by xnview »

cday wrote:
xnview wrote:it works for me in batch convert
My test was using Viewer | File > Save as...
cday wrote:I have tested now using 0.89 beta 1 File > Save as... rather than Batch convert and can report that with my small test file (500px x 500px) processing seems to progress normally and completes quickly, but as you reported originally no file is output ...
it works for me
Pierre.
User avatar
m.Th.
XnThusiast
Posts: 1600
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:31 am

Re: 0.88: Batch-Convert - Guetzli JPEG not working

Post by m.Th. »

Settings:
Guetzli.JPG
Batch Convert & Save in: C:\Output\

Nothing is output.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
m. Th.

- Dark Themed XnViewMP 1.0 64bit on Win10 x64 -
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 37883
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France

Re: 0.88: Batch-Convert - Guetzli JPEG not working

Post by xnview »

please send me you .ini?
Pierre.
User avatar
m.Th.
XnThusiast
Posts: 1600
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:31 am

Re: 0.88: Batch-Convert - Guetzli JPEG not working

Post by m.Th. »

xnview wrote:please send me you .ini?
Sent.

Received?
m. Th.

- Dark Themed XnViewMP 1.0 64bit on Win10 x64 -
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 37883
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France

Re: 0.88: Batch-Convert - Guetzli JPEG not working

Post by xnview »

yes, guetzli has a limitation, you need to use quality >= 84
Pierre.
User avatar
m.Th.
XnThusiast
Posts: 1600
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:31 am

Re: 0.88: Batch-Convert - Guetzli JPEG not working

Post by m.Th. »

xnview wrote:yes, guetzli has a limitation, you need to use quality >= 84
First off, this should be mentioned in a stop dialogue / warning /ban etc.

Even so it has problems. If I try to convert CR2 (Raw option = 'embedded preview') files to Guetzli JPG it runs forever. Clicking on [x] button from Batch Convert it closes the dialog before it finishes (!), but the Guetzli.exe is still running in the background consuming an entire core and a lot of memory.

Also, with simple JPEG it seems to fail if in Write Settings the 'Rebuild embedded EXIF thumbnail' option is checked.
m. Th.

- Dark Themed XnViewMP 1.0 64bit on Win10 x64 -
Hacker
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 9:24 pm
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

Re: 0.88: Batch-Convert - Guetzli JPEG not working

Post by Hacker »

I have to agree here that some warning should be mentioned when selecting Guetzli with an unsupported quality setting. Had to Google to get to this thread, wondering why no output files were produced while the log clearly said everything went fine.

Roman
user123
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2022 3:08 pm

Re: 0.88: Batch-Convert - Guetzli JPEG not working

Post by user123 »

It still doesn't work.
My conversion settings:
Quality is 94%.
Screenshot_2022-07-26_21-00-55_Snipper - Snipaste.png
What happens:
Infinity conversion that never ends and never progresses.
Screenshot_2022-07-26_20-58-44_Snipper - Snipaste.png
When pressing Stop, XnView MP just stops responding and crashes.
Screenshot_2022-07-26_20-59-48_Snipper - Snipaste.png
XnView MP Windows
Version 1.0 64bits (Apr 28 2022)
Libformat version 7.110
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
cday
XnThusiast
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:45 am
Location: Cheltenham, U.K.

Re: 0.88: Batch-Convert - Guetzli JPEG not working

Post by cday »

It is important to remember that the Guetzli format was introduced specifically to reduce the size of the normally small images used on web pages, in order to reduce the time required to download the complete page.

The time required to create a compressed version of larger files can be *very* long, and the format should not be used for those images. Whether there is actually a confirmed bug in the implementation, or conversion of large images is simply extremely slow, I'm not sure.