XnView Software

The last 3 entries of the actual "View" -> "Thumbnail size" list are for 4:3 ratio digicam images.
Please give us 2 additional entries for smaller sizes. I like to suggest 96x72 and 128x96,
which are also recommended by Christian Ghisler for TotalCommander's thumbnail view.

A list divider above the 4:3 ratio sizes would be fine, too.

Are the non-square size a real advantage? If you view portrait images, the thumbnails will be all pretty small, then.

Perhaps a menu item "Custom..." which directly leads to the appropriate option might be useful.

Lesmo16 wrote:The last 3 entries of the actual "View" -> "Thumbnail size" list are for 4:3 ratio digicam images.
Please give us 2 additional entries for smaller sizes. I like to suggest 96x72 and 128x96,
which are also recommended by Christian Ghisler for TotalCommander's thumbnail view.

A list divider above the 4:3 ratio sizes would be fine, too.

I can add 96x72 & 128x96 in thumbnail size, but why do you want to put a divider??

32x32
48x48
64x48
64x64
85x64
85x85
92x69
96x72
100x100
128x96
192x144

xnview wrote:I can add 96x72 & 128x96 in thumbnail size, but why do you want to put a divider??

32x32
...

I think Lesmo is thinking of something like:

32x32
48x48
64x64
85x85
100x100
-------------
64x48
85x64
92x69
96x72
128x96
192x144

This would make things a bit clearer, but I still wonder what the benefit of all the non-square image formats is (see question above). Let's wait and see what Lesmo and other people say.

This would make things a bit clearer, but I still wonder what the benefit of all the non-square image formats is (see question above).

The majority of the images is shot as a landscape. Also, there is no real advantage for portrait pictures in having 96x96 thumbs instead of 128x96 thumbs.

Roman

Hacker wrote:

This would make things a bit clearer, but I still wonder what the benefit of all the non-square image formats is (see question above).

The majority of the images is shot as a landscape. Also, there is no real advantage for portrait pictures in having 96x96 thumbs instead of 128x96 thumbs.

Sounds reasonable. So I think we should go for Lesmo's suggestion, but have about the same entries in for both ratios:

36x27
48x36
64x48
85x64
92x69
96x72
128x96
192x144
-------------
32x32
48x48
64x64
85x85
100x100
128x128
150x150
192x192

What do other people think? Is there a need for both 92x69 and 96x72?

helmut wrote:What do other people think? Is there a need for both 92x69 and 96x72?

I'm using another file manager (Servant Salamander) and I want to switch to Gyula's Navigator later, so first add support for those file managers .

helmut wrote:

Hacker wrote:

This would make things a bit clearer, but I still wonder what the benefit of all the non-square image formats is (see question above).

The majority of the images is shot as a landscape. Also, there is no real advantage for portrait pictures in having 96x96 thumbs instead of 128x96 thumbs.

Sounds reasonable. So I think we should go for Lesmo's suggestion, but have about the same entries in for both ratios:

36x27
48x36
64x48
85x64
92x69
96x72
128x96
192x144
-------------
32x32
48x48
64x64
85x85
100x100
128x128
150x150
192x192

What do other people think? Is there a need for both 92x69 and 96x72?

Ok, i change it

helmut wrote:Is there a need for both 92x69 and 96x72?

Just 96x72 is enough.

xnview wrote:Ok, i change it

That's fine - thank you Pierre!

SOLVED - Thanks!

Lesmo16 wrote:SOLVED - Thanks!

OK, moved.