RC5: Preview still built in two steps

marsh · Post by **marsh** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:08 pm

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)"?

Dreamer · Post by **Dreamer** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:59 pm

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.

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:56 am

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".

ckit · Post by **ckit** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:59 am

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.

Olive · Post by **Olive** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 12:14 pm

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.

Post by **xnview** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:18 am

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????

Hacker · Post by **Hacker** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:26 am

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

marsh · Post by **marsh** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:30 am

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.

Lesmo16 · Post by **Lesmo16** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:43 am

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)".

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:44 pm

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.

Post by **xnview** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:13 pm

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

Lesmo16 · Post by **Lesmo16** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:24 pm

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.

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:56 pm

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).

Olivier_G · Post by **Olivier_G** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 pm

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

JohnFredC · Post by **JohnFredC** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:36 am

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.