"export" vs. "save as / writing options"

[simon]

Hi

This new version sounds great. Congratulations!
Thanks to have added a chroma subsampling option for JPEG files (in the export command)

By the way, I am wondering why there are two separate but somewhat similar ways to save a file in a given format with some control parameters: "save as / options" and "export", with more or less the same parameters, although the "export" command in general allows a little bit more controls than the "save as / option" command.

Why not to merge these two commands in a single "save as" command with all the controls grouped in the "writing options" ?

I also performed some tests in saving a BMP file in JPEG through the export command. The work is done properly in any case (no bug), but the following point sounds strange:

export with 16m color mode, Quality=95, DCT=slow, smoothing=0, subsampling=2x2,1x1,1x1, non-progressive and no huffman optimization gives exactly the same result (same file size and same content) as "save as" where options are non-progressive, no huffman optimization, and quality=95

But if "optimize huffman table" is marked in both commands (all other parameters being as mentioned above), the results are different in terms of file size (although the pixel content remain identical: checked in using an aritmetic difference function which leads to fully black picture - color count=1)

initial BMP: 4651 ko
JPEG "export" or "save as" without huffman optimization: 436 ko (as save as of 1.82 version)
JPEG "save as" with huffman optimization: 424 ko (as save as of 1.82 version)
but JPEG "export" with huffman optimization: 409 ko only !!!

XnView 1.90 <x>

[xnview]

I also performed some tests in saving a BMP file in JPEG through the export command. The work is done properly in any case (no bug), but the following point sounds strange:

export with 16m color mode, Quality=95, DCT=slow, smoothing=0, subsampling=2x2,1x1,1x1, non-progressive and no huffman optimization gives exactly the same result (same file size and same content) as "save as" where options are non-progressive, no huffman optimization, and quality=95

But if "optimize huffman table" is marked in both commands (all other parameters being as mentioned above), the results are different in terms of file size (although the pixel content remain identical: checked in using an aritmetic difference function which leads to fully black picture - color count=1)

initial BMP: 4651 ko
JPEG "export" or "save as" without huffman optimization: 436 ko (as save as of 1.82 version)
JPEG "save as" with huffman optimization: 424 ko (as save as of 1.82 version)
but JPEG "export" with huffman optimization: 409 ko only !!!

Right, 'optimize' was not used in export

[GeorgD]

For 1.9 alpha 3 the "save as" uses/alters the usual settings whereas "export" uses it's own settings. Great that's what I missed for so long Three simple bugs/RFEs:
1) in the menu, the E is not underlined, but working as access key => just underline it like the A in save as
2) the export dialog window is not resizable thus details are difficult to check (only with lots of panning in the tiny preview window)
3) in the dialog, the 4 buttons between original & preview have no tool tip yet.

As pure RFE: As stated in "Quick save as ususal types" http://newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.php?p=36713#36713 it would be nice to have kind of "quick select" buttons (or drop down or whatever). So clicking the first button sets JPEG compression, sampling,... and the second button another JPEG setting and the third some PNG.
/Georg

[Olivier_G]

Right, 'optimize' was not used in export

Works in Beta 5.

1) in the menu, the E is not underlined, but working as access key => just underline it like the A in save as
2) the export dialog window is not resizable thus details are difficult to check
3) in the dialog, the 4 buttons between original & preview have no tool tip yet.

1. I don't understand. Can someone check this? ...EDIT: I understood (Alt key access to Menu) -> E is underlined in Beta 5.
2. Right. There are many windows which could be resizable to improve the interface. See also here.
3. Tooltips work in Beta 5.

Edit: there are other ideas left about Save & Export Interface, like merging Save & Export and using Custom Buttons (with Format settings).
-> back to Info & Feedback.

[GeorgD]

2) the export dialog window is not resizable thus details are difficult to check

2. Right. There are many windows which could be resizable to improve the interface. See also here

In 1.96.5 still the case Pierre, what's your point of view?

[xnview]

2) the export dialog window is not resizable thus details are difficult to check

2. Right. There are many windows which could be resizable to improve the interface. See also here

In 1.96.5 still the case Pierre, what's your point of view?

It's not easy in win32 to make resizable dialog

[GeorgD]

It's not easy in win32 to make resizable dialog

Okay, in the languages I programed with it's just a boolean parameter of the function, so very easy... In your framework, is it easier to set size to a variable, so user may once set the desired size somewhere (Options or INI)?