RC5: Preview still built in two steps

Ideas for improvements and requests for new features in XnView Classic

Moderator: xnview

User avatar
Lesmo16
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 8:59 pm
Location: Germany

RC5: Preview still built in two steps

Post by Lesmo16 »

Hm, there's a new flaw since RC5.

The previews of my digicam JPEGs are built in a kind of two small steps.

1) the complete preview image is visible - it looks unnaturally sharp
2) the complete preview image is drawn twice on top, it seems if it's drawn 1 or 2 pixels to the left and 1 pixel to the top - now it looks smoother and naturally.

I've seen something like that from an other photo program (can't remember which).
Last edited by Lesmo16 on Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand!
Top
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 47333
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France

Re: [Flaw:] RC5: Preview built in two small steps

Post by xnview »

Lesmo16 wrote:Hm, there's a new flaw since RC5.

The previews of my digicam JPEGs are built in a kind of two small steps.

1) the complete preview image is visible - it looks unnaturally sharp
2) the complete preview image is drawn twice on top, it seems if it's drawn 1 or 2 pixels to the left and 1 pixel to the top - now it looks smoother and naturally.

I've seen something like that from an other photo program (can't remember which).
Sorry do you have some screenshot, i don't understand...
Pierre.
Top
Danny
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:09 pm

Post by Danny »

Yes. First the plain (low-q) image is being displayed and then some kind of anti-aliasing filter is being applied seemingly. Which is especially bad for graphic files like GIFs.
Top
User avatar
Lesmo16
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 8:59 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Lesmo16 »

Danny wrote:Yes. First the plain (low-q) image is being displayed and then some kind of anti-aliasing filter is being applied seemingly. Which is especially bad for graphic files like GIFs.
It must be something like that - but with JPEG.
Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand!
Top
Danny
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:09 pm

Post by Danny »

Lesmo16 wrote:
Danny wrote:Yes. First the plain (low-q) image is being displayed and then some kind of anti-aliasing filter is being applied seemingly. Which is especially bad for graphic files like GIFs.
It must be something like that - but with JPEG.
I never said it only happens with GIFs. It happens with all image filetypes.
Top
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 47333
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France

Post by xnview »

Danny wrote:Yes. First the plain (low-q) image is being displayed and then some kind of anti-aliasing filter is being applied seemingly. Which is especially bad for graphic files like GIFs.
Yes, i have added a timer to show high quality picture. When you have big picture, you have low quality first, and high quality 500ms after...
Pierre.
Top
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 47333
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France

Post by xnview »

Is it really annoying? Picture is seen more quicker, and after in high quality...
Pierre.
Top
Dreamer
XnThusiast
Posts: 4608
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:08 pm

Post by Dreamer »

xnview wrote:Is it really annoying? Picture is seen more quicker, and after in high quality...
Yes, very annoying :(
Top
Danny
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:09 pm

Post by Danny »

xnview wrote:Is it really annoying? Picture is seen more quicker, and after in high quality...
I could get used to it. It's just a preview after all.
Top
Dreamer
XnThusiast
Posts: 4608
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:08 pm

Post by Dreamer »

Good idea, but it is very annoying with small images...

Maybe, use it only for large image...
Top
User avatar
Lesmo16
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 8:59 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Lesmo16 »

xnview wrote:Is it really annoying? Picture is seen more quicker, and after in high quality...
It's absolutely annoying.
I prefer to wait a little, instead of getting crazy by those pumping images. :mrgreen:
Dreamer wrote:Maybe, use it only for large image...
Very good idea - support! :)


@xnview:
Pierre, what do you think about making something similar to:
Options -> Browser -> Thumbnail -> "No thumbnail for files larger than" 1024

For example:
Options -> Browser -> Preview -> "Smaller delay for files larger than" 4096
This option checked will act like RC5, unchecked like previous versions.
Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand!
Top
Olive
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:18 pm
Location: Marseille

Post by Olive »

To be quite honest it's very annoying, however large is the pic to preview. I don't want to sound selfish but users on slow computers should have disabled High Quality Preview in the first place, there's no reason why others should put up with a 500ms transition.
Top
User avatar
helmut
Posts: 8704
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:47 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Post by helmut »

The delayed updating is annoying and irritating. Nothing else to add to the comments above - apart that it's not needed and wanted on fast computers.
Top
User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 47333
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France

Post by xnview »

helmut wrote:The delayed updating is annoying and irritating. Nothing else to add to the comments above - apart that it's not needed and wanted on fast computers.
Ok, i remove it :-( or perhaps only in fullscreen????
Pierre.
Top
User avatar
Lesmo16
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 8:59 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Lesmo16 »

xnview wrote:
helmut wrote:The delayed updating is annoying and irritating. Nothing else to add to the comments above - apart that it's not needed and wanted on fast computers.
Ok, i remove it :-( or perhaps only in fullscreen????
Seems you love that feature! :mrgreen:

But IMO - No, please not in fullscreen, too.
Perhaps you should think about my suggested option? :wink:
Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand!
Top

Return to “Classic - Suggestions”