Page 3 of 4
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:08 pm
by marsh
Danny wrote:helmut wrote:And the wording needs to be improved and made clearer. E.g. I don't understand what the "(browser only)" means.
Some possible wordings:
1 - "Use delayed smoothening for pictures larger than (pixel)"
or
2 - "Use delayed high quality for pictures larger than (pixel)"
or
3 - "Use delay before high quality view for pictures larger than (pixel)"
It only applies to the preview area of the browser.
"Use 2-step high quality preview for pictures larger than (pixel)"?
"Use delayed high quality preview for pictures larger than (pixel)"?
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:59 pm
by Dreamer
I vote for this:
"Use 2-step high quality preview for pictures larger than (pixel)"
or this:
"Use delay before high quality view for pictures larger than (pixel)"
...because it's clear, term "high quality" is used also in Slide Show, High Zoom Quality... so I think
"high quality" should be used here too.
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:56 am
by helmut
My current favourites are a mixture:
"Use delayed high quality view for pictures larger than (pixel)"
or
"Use delayed high quality for pictures larger than (pixel)"
What do English native speakers suggest?
If this setting affects the preview in browser, only, I think this should be moved to category "Browser > Preview".
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:59 am
by ckit
helmut wrote:My current favourites are a mixture:
"Use delayed high quality view for pictures larger than (pixel)"
or
"Use delayed high quality for pictures larger than (pixel)"
What do English native speakers suggest?
If this setting affects the preview in browser, only, I think this should be moved to category "Browser > Preview".
Out of those two I like...
"Use delayed high quality for pictures larger than (pixel)"
because we already have "Use high quality" in Browser -> Preview and this would match it in wording.
I agree to the second issue.
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 12:14 pm
by Olive
It actually affects preview and fullscreen-lite, not fullscreen proper. So yes, either move it to browser>preview or leave it in fullscreen but add "(also affects preview)" at the end of the string.
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:18 am
by xnview
Olive wrote:It actually affects preview and fullscreen-lite, not fullscreen proper. So yes, either move it to browser>preview or leave it in fullscreen but add "(also affects preview)" at the end of the string.
Perhaps it's problem that this setting affect preview too????
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:26 am
by Hacker
BTW: What is the value you enter there? The image size in pixels? So the default 2048 means images larger than 64*32?
TIA
Roman
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:30 am
by marsh
OT: This speed comparison might be interesting between the 2 fullscreen modes.
It seems to show a speed difference only at Low Quality.
Quick-Slide-Show Delay "0" 200MB of 500k jpgs
Fullscreen 70seconds.
Preview Fullscreen 70 seconds.
LQ Preview Fullscreen 40 seconds.
Delayed HQ Preview Fullscreen 2048pixels 65 seconds.
Delayed HQ Preview Fullscreen 512pixels 45 seconds.
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:43 am
by Lesmo16
xnview wrote:Olive wrote:It actually affects preview and fullscreen-lite, not fullscreen proper. So yes, either move it to browser>preview or leave it in fullscreen but add "(also affects preview)" at the end of the string.
Perhaps it's problem that this setting affect preview too????
Pierre, please let it affect for preview too.
BTW: I support
Olive's suggestion: "(also affects preview)".
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:44 pm
by helmut
Hacker wrote:BTW: What is the value you enter there? The image size in pixels? So the default 2048 means images larger than 64*32?
Good question. I thought it would be width or height. If this is really the case, the wording for the option has to be changed.
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:13 pm
by xnview
helmut wrote:Hacker wrote:BTW: What is the value you enter there? The image size in pixels? So the default 2048 means images larger than 64*32?
Good question. I thought it would be width or height. If this is really the case, the wording for the option has to be changed.
No it's the size in width or height in pixels. So 2048 means >= 2048 x 2048
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:24 pm
by Lesmo16
xnview wrote:helmut wrote:Hacker wrote:BTW: What is the value you enter there? The image size in pixels? So the default 2048 means images larger than 64*32?
Good question. I thought it would be width or height. If this is really the case, the wording for the option has to be changed.
No it's the size in width or height in pixels. So 2048 means >= 2048 x 2048
Why using something from inside the image?
Why not using file size in bytes?
Everybody knows the file size from his filemanager without looking into the file.
This also doesn't care about image ratio.
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:56 pm
by helmut
Lesmo16 wrote:Why using something from inside the image?
Why not using file size in bytes?
Everybody knows the file size from his filemanager without looking into the file.
This also doesn't care about image ratio.
The speed of the smoothening (high quality) depends on the number of pixels, I guess this is the reason why Pierre uses pixels as units.
Very strongly compressed files (e.g. JPG) could have a small file size but a large number of pixels (dimension). So file size would not be fully correct. But even Pierre's current approach has a flaw, what happens if a file is 3000 pixel wide but only 10 pixel high?
Not sure what a really good solution is. Currently I'd prefer file size to "pixel" (which is actually height / width).
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 pm
by Olivier_G
Maybe we should use what Hacker mentioned previously: the number of pixels (as the surface area: width x height) ?
=> "Use 2-step high quality preview for pictures larger than [X] Mega-Pixels"
Most people know what a "Mega-Pixel" is (thanks to digital cameras), it does represent exactly the complexity of the operation... and you can use a pretty single-digit default number.
Olivier
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:36 am
by JohnFredC
Perhaps attempting to decide on a single parameter is the problem.
Maybe entering a width and a height is more appropriate.
For instance, many of the Mars Surveyor images that I work with are of the order of 512x19200 BEFORE I resize them larger.