Page 4 of 4
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:27 am
by xnview
helmut wrote: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.
Yes, exactly
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?
Used, because it's slow here too
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:10 am
by Hacker
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
So 2048 does not include 5000*1500?
Roman
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:43 am
by xnview
Hacker wrote:xnview wrote:helmut wrote:
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
So 2048 does not include 5000*1500?
No, include Width > OR height >
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:27 pm
by Lesmo16
"Use delayed high quality for pictures larger than (pixel)
(browser only, also affects preview)"
I don't want to discuss the text (I just accept it), but what about writing "pixel" behind the TextBox instead where it's now?
Bad location
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:35 pm
by Clo
Lesmo16
Hi !
…but what about writing "pixel" behind the TextBox instead where it's now?
- I agree, I noticed that it isn't very logical… Forward the field should be better.
K R
Claude
Clo
Re: Bad location
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:58 pm
by Lesmo16
Clo wrote:…but what about writing "pixel" behind the TextBox instead where it's now?
- I agree, I noticed that it isn't very logical… Forward the field should be better.
Clo, you mean left from the TextBox?
IMO it's more common on the right: [2048] Pixels - like spoken.
But in fact we're talking about peanuts, right?
Not a problem---
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:12 pm
by Clo
Not a big deal for me, I can fix up that "personally"
- Such little annoyances could be fixed up following the first step of
this way…
VG
Claude
Clo
Re: Not a problem---
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:28 pm
by Lesmo16
Clo wrote: Not a big deal for me, I can fix up that "personally"
- Such little annoyances could be fixed up following the first step of
this way…
Clo, thanks for the link.
I'll do some experiments ...
[OT, though…]
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:19 pm
by Clo
You will be welcome in the aforesaid thread, if you discover some “snags” here and there … and even if you don't !
VG
Claude
Clo
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:37 pm
by Olivier_G
So what about my previous suggestion ?
Olivier_G wrote: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) and it does represent exactly the complexity of the operation...
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:49 am
by Hacker
Olivier_G wrote:So what about my previous suggestion ?
Olivier_G wrote: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) and it does represent exactly the complexity of the operation...
Megapixel refers to the total amount of pixels, not to vertical or horizontal resolution, as in this case. For this wording to match, Pierre would need to change the way the value is checked.
Roman
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:19 pm
by Olivier_G
Hacker wrote:Olivier_G wrote:=> "Use 2-step high quality preview for pictures larger than [X] Mega-Pixels"
Megapixel refers to the total amount of pixels, not to vertical or horizontal resolution, as in this case. For this wording to match, Pierre would need to change the way the value is checked.
Exactly: my suggestion is not about wording....
It is about changing the condition itself in order to better reflect the complexity/time of the operation, which seems to be the main issue, here, given Pierre's answers.
Olivier
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:21 pm
by xnview
Olivier_G wrote:Hacker wrote:Olivier_G wrote:=> "Use 2-step high quality preview for pictures larger than [X] Mega-Pixels"
Megapixel refers to the total amount of pixels, not to vertical or horizontal resolution, as in this case. For this wording to match, Pierre would need to change the way the value is checked.
Exactly: my suggestion is not about wording....
It is about changing the condition itself in order to better reflect the complexity/time of the operation, which seems to be the main issue, here, given Pierre's answers.
Yes perhaps better, but not in this release...
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:29 pm
by Olivier_G
xnview wrote:Yes perhaps better, but not in this release...
OK. I understand that 1.80 has been a HUGE amount of changes and work, and agree with your answer. I wish you a good "1.80 release"
Thank you, Pierre.
Olivier
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:14 pm
by Olivier_G
UpdateOlivier_G wrote:2-pass HQ for pictures larger than [X] Mega-Pixels
This should be part of the current
Options reorganization and be moved to View>High Quality Zoom options as well.