Page 1 of 1
waste of space (on the desktop in browser mode)
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:25 pm
by loth
hi all,
in browser mode with a pre-defined thumbnailsize of 384x288
and of course some other modes, there is a lot of waste of space.
please
have a look at this screenshot
http://members.fortunecity.de/webspace7 ... endung.jpg
(let me know, if this links doesnt work)
i wonder how we can avoid a space-waste like this.
any ideas/suggestions?
please let me know if there is a similar topic, i didnt find one, but remember that there could be one 8-) if yes, please move this request (moderator).
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:53 pm
by Olivier_G
I had to copy/paste your link to see the image (direct linking doesn't seem to work).
The space is lost because you chosed 384x288 thumbnail size (landscape orientation) for portrait (vertical) images. The solution is that YOU choose the best thumbnail size depending on your kind of pictures.
XnView cannot decide for you...
This being said, there might be an interesting solution here...
There could be an option where XnView automatically choose the smallest Frame size applicable.
Therefore, if you browse only vertical images (or only horizontal) in a particular folder, XnView will be able to optimize the space used and
may show more thumbnails in the same area.
It should stay as an option: some users prefer fixed size (I do), and it might slow the display of thumbnails.
Olivier
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:03 pm
by loth
Olivier_G wrote:There could be an option where XnView automatically choose the smallest Frame size applicable.
Therefore, if you browse only vertical images (or only horizontal) in a particular folder, XnView will be able to optimize the space used and may show more thumbnails in the same area.
It should stay as an option: some users prefer fixed size (I do), and it might slow the display of thumbnails.
i prefer a solution where the user can chose what he/she want.
also i would prefer a software which does automaticly what i think, not what i click %-)
your described option is greatly desirable.
please others, let us know what you think.
the screenshot-link
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:05 pm
by loth
OT:
Olivier_G wrote:I had to copy/paste your link to see the image (direct linking doesn't seem to work).
the screenshot i have used is linked to a free-webspace-server. they might not want the people to have direct-links in pics. maybe thats the reason why you had to paste that link. sorry for that.
