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



Permlink Replies: 31 - Pages: 3 [ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ] - Last Post: 22 Jan 25, 22:11 Last Post By: davidekholm Threads: [ Previous | Next ]
RobM

Posts: 3,999
Registered: 4-Aug-2006
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 18 Jan 25, 21:47   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
Updated the external tool
RobM

Posts: 3,999
Registered: 4-Aug-2006
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 19 Jan 25, 00:19   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
Looking at the readers & writers listed the 'Standard JPEG Image Reader' and 'Standard JPEG Image Writer' are listed twice, the first can be deselected the second can't. Are they actually the same?
MarkusD

Posts: 682
Registered: 13-Apr-2006
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 19 Jan 25, 08:31   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
Rob, thanks for your help! I'm now on 37b3 and will play with it.
davidekholm

Posts: 3,624
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 19 Jan 25, 18:46   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
RobM wrote:

Would it not be easier, for you and the user, if only image formats that had multiple readers/writers are shown? At the very least if there is only one reader/writer for a format then it/they should be greyed out.

Well, some users experience crashes with some DNG files, and removing the RAW support by unticking the RAW reader would be an easy workaround until we've rewritten the RAW support. I'd prefer to keep it like this, it's under Preferences->Advanced after all.
davidekholm

Posts: 3,624
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 19 Jan 25, 18:49   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
RobM wrote:
Looking at the readers & writers listed the 'Standard JPEG Image Reader' and 'Standard JPEG Image Writer' are listed twice, the first can be deselected the second can't. Are they actually the same?

No, the one that isn't disabled is mislabeled. It's actually TwelveMonkey's version of the standard JPEG reader. You can disclose that by hovering the mouse over a reader or writer.
RobM

Posts: 3,999
Registered: 4-Aug-2006
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 19 Jan 25, 20:15   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
RobM wrote:
Looking at the readers & writers listed the 'Standard JPEG Image Reader' and 'Standard JPEG Image Writer' are listed twice, the first can be deselected the second can't. Are they actually the same?

No, the one that isn't disabled is mislabeled. It's actually TwelveMonkey's version of the standard JPEG reader. You can disclose that by hovering the mouse over a reader or writer.

Got it, only noticed it when I'd taken a screen grab of the panels.
MarkusD

Posts: 682
Registered: 13-Apr-2006
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 19 Jan 25, 22:05   in response to: MarkusD in response to: MarkusD
I now compiled an album with 37b3 and saw a good improvement. It compiled in 0:10:16. The last time I compiled with the version 36.1 it took 0:15:53.

This is the result with 37b3:
 
0,003s ==> 
                 AlbumBean.registerVariables: 17127 calls   7m 32,86s
                 AlbumObjectImpl.getMetadata: 15852 calls  6m 33,961s
               AlbumObjectImpl.getXmpManager: 18503 calls  6m 31,529s
                 Process compiled expression:   765 calls  2m 58,934s
                           predir processing:   762 calls  2m 50,495s
               AlbumObjectImpl.getProperties: 16712 calls  2m 16,137s
                  AlbumObjectProperties.load: 16714 calls  2m 15,623s
                  HardwareSmoothScaler.scale:   376 calls     31,469s
               FileFilters.getBasicImageInfo: 15667 calls     28,463s
                Executing compiled scriptlet: 100647 calls     27,557s
                               Writing pages:  2327 calls     24,001s
               AlbumBean.getFolderProperties:  1394 calls     21,204s
                     Reading file attributes:  6689 calls     20,449s
                    AlbumBean.makeIndexPages:   762 calls     20,331s
                   AlbumBean.countTotalFiles:     1 calls     18,976s
                       FileFilters.loadImage:   275 calls     18,387s
          JAlbumUtilities.getDeepCameraDates:   762 calls     11,144s
                                        init:     1 calls      9,554s
             JAlbumUtilities.countCategories:  6953 calls      9,341s
                             Create MediaRSS:   762 calls      7,173s
                           AlbumBean.popVars: 64469 calls       7,04s
                       FileFilters.saveImage:   518 calls      4,506s
             Executing interpreted scriptlet: 105239 calls      3,811s
                     JSONMaker.makeDataPages:   762 calls       3,31s
                          AlbumBean.pushVars: 64470 calls      2,752s
  JAlbumUtilities.countWebLocationCategories:   997 calls      1,868s
                        Compiling scriptlets: 95887 calls       1,11s
                       Making deep-data.json:     1 calls      0,993s
                                 Clone image:   420 calls      0,868s
                          JSONMaker.makeTree:     1 calls      0,732s
                            Compiling script:     4 calls      0,587s
                    AlbumBean.processFilters:  1043 calls      0,114s
                          Process expression:     1 calls      0,011s
                              Copy res files:     1 calls      0,007s
                                       Total: 556864 calls 35m 35,297s


Nevertheless, I found "Camera date cache miss" 9,233 times in the console.

Cheers, Markus
davidekholm

Posts: 3,624
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 20 Jan 25, 11:01   in response to: MarkusD in response to: MarkusD
Thanks Markus. Is the camera date cache miss relating to directories or individual images?
RobM

Posts: 3,999
Registered: 4-Aug-2006
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 20 Jan 25, 12:16   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
RobM wrote:

Would it not be easier, for you and the user, if only image formats that had multiple readers/writers are shown? At the very least if there is only one reader/writer for a format then it/they should be greyed out.

Well, some users experience crashes with some DNG files, and removing the RAW support by unticking the RAW reader would be an easy workaround until we've rewritten the RAW support. I'd prefer to keep it like this, it's under Preferences->Advanced after all.

Ok. Is the dng failures related to waiting LibRawFX or has this bug:
https://jalbum.net/forum/message.jspa?messageID=356951#356951
Been fixed?
davidekholm

Posts: 3,624
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 20 Jan 25, 17:09   in response to: RobM in response to: RobM
RobM wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
RobM wrote:

Would it not be easier, for you and the user, if only image formats that had multiple readers/writers are shown? At the very least if there is only one reader/writer for a format then it/they should be greyed out.

Well, some users experience crashes with some DNG files, and removing the RAW support by unticking the RAW reader would be an easy workaround until we've rewritten the RAW support. I'd prefer to keep it like this, it's under Preferences->Advanced after all.

Ok. Is the dng failures related to waiting LibRawFX or has this bug:
https://jalbum.net/forum/message.jspa?messageID=356951#356951
Been fixed?

Yes, it's related and no, it hasn't been fixed. It's on my todo to address.
davidekholm

Posts: 3,624
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 20 Jan 25, 17:18   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
Guys, I now have b4 available for you via a beta core update from https://jalbum.net/download/beta/jalbum-core.jar

Changes:
  • Progress bars now display video progress as well
  • Fixed bug where progress bars weren't sometimes updated between processing of two videos
  • Fixed bug where progress bars could take a step back
  • "Force remake" no longer forces reprocessing of videos. This setting now applies to images only (as video processing is so much more expensive). To also have videos reprocessed, like before, hold down ALT while selecting "Force remake".
  • MultiMaker also adjusted so SHIFT-ALT forces video reprocessing as well. To only reprocess images, only hold down SHIFT (changed from ALT to be symmetric with main UI)

Jeff, I finally addressed this one (not forcing video rebuilds). Fast right ;-)
JeffTucker

Posts: 8,436
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 20 Jan 25, 17:42   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
Jeff, I finally addressed this one (not forcing video rebuilds).

You win the prize for the week. :)

That's been a longstanding problem - sometimes, you really want to generate all new slide images, or even just thumbnails (even more common, I think), but you don't want to reprocess all the videos.
JeffTucker

Posts: 8,436
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 20 Jan 25, 18:42   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
Guys, I now have b4 available for you via a beta core update from https://jalbum.net/download/beta/jalbum-core.jar

This core is giving me 36b3.
MarkusD

Posts: 682
Registered: 13-Apr-2006
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 20 Jan 25, 18:48   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
davidekholm wrote:
Thanks Markus. Is the camera date cache miss relating to directories or individual images?
Both. I searched for "Camera date cache miss for" in my console log and found it 9,233 times.

3,824 files are PNG
1,341 files are PDF
2,602 files are JPG

Nearly all of these PNG files are screenshots, they don't have meta data. The PDF files too. And the JPG files are "real" photos, most of them, but, I deleted all meta data with the Exif GUI tool.

Cheer, Markus
davidekholm

Posts: 3,624
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: jAlbum 37 beta for testing
Posted: 20 Jan 25, 19:05   in response to: JeffTucker in response to: JeffTucker
JeffTucker wrote:
davidekholm wrote:
Guys, I now have b4 available for you via a beta core update from https://jalbum.net/download/beta/jalbum-core.jar

This core is giving me 36b3.


Really odd. I'm updating the file via the command line and I'm getting no errors, still it's the old file. Some stuck cache. I'll let Anders look into it. Until then, you can get the b4 from the "logical" location https://jalbum.net/download/beta2/jalbum-core.jar
Legend
Forum admins
Helpful Answer
Correct Answer

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