Thread Locked This thread is locked - replies are not allowed.



Permlink Replies: 135 - Pages: 10 [ Previous | 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] - Last Post: 19-Oct-2018 00:38 Last Post By: davidekholm Threads: [ Previous | Next ]
davidekholm

Posts: 3,698
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 01-Oct-2018 13:03   in response to: jGromit in response to: jGromit
jGromit wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
Thanks for reporting those crash bugs jGromit! I now believe I've fixed those (b4):

Seems to be solid in every situation I've tried. :)


Great! Thanks for testing this one and discovering the problem. Now we have one less external library to rely on.
davidekholm

Posts: 3,698
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 01-Oct-2018 13:17   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
RobM wrote:
Disable color subsampling setting, been thinking about this. When turning this on wouldn't it be better to set the quality value to 90? Anything less and it is not active and anything more results in the file size warning. The tool tip popup could then say a 'Quality set to 90 a "Make all" is required to update images.' The only reason I can think of for not doing that would be if there is a plan to allow the quality setting to be overridden on an image by image basis.

That would make it somewhat more intuitive, but annoy those who only wishes this feature for thumbnails. If you have hi-res thumbnails activated, jAlbum will apply a 90% quality compression on thumbnails and thereby also disable chroma subsampling for thumbnails.

I'm leaning towards "simplifying" it and remove the 90% requirement, but that would have the side effect of disabling chroma subsampling for both thumbnails and slide images. Perhaps that little downside is worth the added simplicity?
RobM

Posts: 3,257
Registered: 4-Aug-2006
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 01-Oct-2018 13:38   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
RobM wrote:
Disable color subsampling setting, been thinking about this. When turning this on wouldn't it be better to set the quality value to 90? Anything less and it is not active and anything more results in the file size warning. The tool tip popup could then say a 'Quality set to 90 a "Make all" is required to update images.' The only reason I can think of for not doing that would be if there is a plan to allow the quality setting to be overridden on an image by image basis.

That would make it somewhat more intuitive, but annoy those who only wishes this feature for thumbnails. If you have hi-res thumbnails activated, jAlbum will apply a 90% quality compression on thumbnails and thereby also disable chroma subsampling for thumbnails.

I'm leaning towards "simplifying" it and remove the 90% requirement, but that would have the side effect of disabling chroma subsampling for both thumbnails and slide images. Perhaps that little downside is worth the added simplicity?

I can see lots of users just ticking the disable colour subsampling and not looking at the tooltip saying you need a quality of 90% or more, so removing the % requirement would be better for them. Perhaps that and two checkboxes, one for thumbs and one for slides, would make its use easier and still give the choice of either or both. Just a thought.
RobM

Posts: 3,257
Registered: 4-Aug-2006
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 01-Oct-2018 14:40   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
If you have hi-res thumbnails activated, jAlbum will apply a 90% quality compression on thumbnails.
For the documentation, does that hold true for slide images too? And if the quality setting is already higher than 90% is it left unchanged or downgraded?
davidekholm

Posts: 3,698
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 03-Oct-2018 21:20   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
Hi. I've made another beta update, this time reworked jAlbum's review mode. It now allows you to both zoom into images and to compare two images side by side. Try double clicking to quickly zoom in/out max.
davidekholm

Posts: 3,698
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 03-Oct-2018 21:23   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
RobM wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
If you have hi-res thumbnails activated, jAlbum will apply a 90% quality compression on thumbnails.
For the documentation, does that hold true for slide images too? And if the quality setting is already higher than 90% is it left unchanged or downgraded?

As long as image is using >= 90% quality then the "disable color subsampling" setting is respected.
RobM

Posts: 3,257
Registered: 4-Aug-2006
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 03-Oct-2018 21:33   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
RobM wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
If you have hi-res thumbnails activated, jAlbum will apply a 90% quality compression on thumbnails.
For the documentation, does that hold true for slide images too? And if the quality setting is already higher than 90% is it left unchanged or downgraded?

As long as image is using >= 90% quality then the "disable color subsampling" setting is respected.

I was trying to find out if having hi-res slides activated will jAlbum apply a 90% quality compression as it does for thumbnails. Also, if quality is already above 90% is that setting respected or does setting hi-res force a 90% quality factor?
RobM

Posts: 3,257
Registered: 4-Aug-2006
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 03-Oct-2018 21:43   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
Hi. I've made another beta update, this time reworked jAlbum's review mode. It now allows you to both zoom into images and to compare two images side by side. Try double clicking to quickly zoom in/out max.
Cool! What might be nice would be to be able to lock one of the images when comparing two side by side, that is the navigation buttons only affect the images in that split window, not both.
davidekholm

Posts: 3,698
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 03-Oct-2018 22:57   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
RobM wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
Hi. I've made another beta update, this time reworked jAlbum's review mode. It now allows you to both zoom into images and to compare two images side by side. Try double clicking to quickly zoom in/out max.
Cool! What might be nice would be to be able to lock one of the images when comparing two side by side, that is the navigation buttons only affect the images in that split window, not both.

Happy you like it :-). Well that's easy to implement. I don't have to synchronize the navigation between the two panels. Is it intuitive that keyboard navigation moves both panels while key presses on buttons in either panel moves that panel only?
davidekholm

Posts: 3,698
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 03-Oct-2018 22:59   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
RobM wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
RobM wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
If you have hi-res thumbnails activated, jAlbum will apply a 90% quality compression on thumbnails.
For the documentation, does that hold true for slide images too? And if the quality setting is already higher than 90% is it left unchanged or downgraded?

As long as image is using >= 90% quality then the "disable color subsampling" setting is respected.

I was trying to find out if having hi-res slides activated will jAlbum apply a 90% quality compression as it does for thumbnails. Also, if quality is already above 90% is that setting respected or does setting hi-res force a 90% quality factor?

Don't confuse the hi-dpi thumbnails and hi-dpi images settings with high-quality thumbnails which is a setting under images->advanced. The hi-dpi checkboxes have no affect on the "disable chroma subsampling" setting. They simply double the dot pitch.
RobM

Posts: 3,257
Registered: 4-Aug-2006
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 03-Oct-2018 23:01   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
RobM wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
Hi. I've made another beta update, this time reworked jAlbum's review mode. It now allows you to both zoom into images and to compare two images side by side. Try double clicking to quickly zoom in/out max.
Cool! What might be nice would be to be able to lock one of the images when comparing two side by side, that is the navigation buttons only affect the images in that split window, not both.

Happy you like it :-). Well that's easy to implement. I don't have to synchronize the navigation between the two panels. Is it intuitive that keyboard navigation moves both panels while key presses on buttons in either panel moves that panel only?

I would have expect keyboard navigation to affect only the active panel.
jGromit

Posts: 7,751
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 03-Oct-2018 23:09   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
Don't confuse the hi-dpi thumbnails and hi-dpi images settings with high-quality thumbnails which is a setting under images->advanced. The hi-dpi checkboxes have no affect on the "disable chroma subsampling" setting. They simply double the dot pitch.

Here's a random, heretical thought.... Is it maybe time to retire the high-quality thumbnails setting? If someone is unhappy with the resolution of the thumbnails, he can always choose hi-dpi thumbnails.

(In fact, in some of my skins, I'm generating oversized folder thumbnails, and to keep them looking sharp, I'm automatically generating them at double-pitch.)
RobM

Posts: 3,257
Registered: 4-Aug-2006
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 03-Oct-2018 23:25   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
RobM wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
RobM wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
If you have hi-res thumbnails activated, jAlbum will apply a 90% quality compression on thumbnails.
For the documentation, does that hold true for slide images too? And if the quality setting is already higher than 90% is it left unchanged or downgraded?

As long as image is using >= 90% quality then the "disable color subsampling" setting is respected.

I was trying to find out if having hi-res slides activated will jAlbum apply a 90% quality compression as it does for thumbnails. Also, if quality is already above 90% is that setting respected or does setting hi-res force a 90% quality factor?

Don't confuse the hi-dpi thumbnails and hi-dpi images settings with high-quality thumbnails which is a setting under images->advanced. The hi-dpi checkboxes have no affect on the "disable chroma subsampling" setting. They simply double the dot pitch.

Ah, now I'm with you. It was the original wording that threw me 'If you have hi-res thumbnails activated' which made me think of HiDPI rather than 'Save thumbnails with high jpeg compression quality'.
davidekholm

Posts: 3,698
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 04-Oct-2018 09:16   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
RobM wrote:

Ah, now I'm with you. It was the original wording that threw me 'If you have hi-res thumbnails activated' which made me think of HiDPI rather than 'Save thumbnails with high jpeg compression quality'.

Got it
jGromit

Posts: 7,751
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: jAlbum 16.3 beta for testing
Posted: 04-Oct-2018 13:52   in response to: jGromit in response to: jGromit
jGromit wrote:
Here's a random, heretical thought.... Is it maybe time to retire the high-quality thumbnails setting? If someone is unhappy with the resolution of the thumbnails, he can always choose hi-dpi thumbnails.

The more I think about this, the better I like the idea.

A little history.... One of the original reasons for offering this setting (introduced in jAlbum 8.5.5) was to address a problem in Matrix with applying XBF drop-shadow borders to thumbnails when using certain colors, like red. At lower quality settings, this produced a "mottled" appearance around the thumbnail. Pushing the quality to 90% largely cured it. But Matrix stopped using XBF to produce shadows on thumbnails many, many years ago.

Thumbnail quality was also an issue back when thumbnail sizes were routinely smaller, like 90x90px. These days, no one is using thumbnails that small. Most newer, responsive skins default to 160x160 or higher, where the image quality is less of a problem.

So now we have three different ways of creating better quality thumbnails - this old checkbox, setting the JPEG Quality for everything to 90%, and choosing HiDPI thumbnails. I believe all current skins can handle HiDPI thumbnails, so anyone wanting better thumbnails can just use that setting. And now we've added the ability to disable chroma subsampling, which requires a quality setting for both slides and thumbnails of at least 90%.

Bottom line - there's really no reason for this obsolete checkbox for thumbnail JPEG quality.
Legend
Forum admins
Helpful Answer
Correct Answer

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in all forums