|
Replies:
19
-
Pages:
2
[
1
2
| Next
]
-
Last Post:
11 Mar 26, 18:52
Last Post By: davidekholm
|
|
|
Posts:
3,922
Registered:
18-Oct-2002
|
|
|
|
jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
10 Mar 26, 12:44
|
|
|
v39.3 is around the corner now. Here's the current beta:
Installers:
Windows: https://jalbum.net/download/jAlbum-install.exe
Mac (M-series): https://jalbum.net/download/jAlbum-M.dmg
Mac (Intel): https://jalbum.net/download/jAlbum.dmg
Linux (arm): https://jalbum.net/download/jalbum_39.3-1_arm64.deb
Linux (Intel): https://jalbum.net/download/jalbum_39.3-1_amd64.deb
Changes:
- Supports signing in and up via Google, Apple and GitHub in addition to classic username+password signin.
- Windows version can now use Windows native image readers and high quality image scaler, see "Tools - Windows Image readers" and "Settings - Images - Scaling - Windows Fant". Using Windows image readers gives 2x faster HEIC reading and 2x faster RAW reading.
- System console is now capped to max 100.000 lines to avoid out of memory conditions due to extensive logging in large projects
- Now clicking project file link within Album information will highlight the project file
- Fixed memory leak in album builds (since v38)
- Fixed broken reading of GPS coordinates for MP4 videos
- More robust init
- Fixed missing AlbumImage.saveImage call (since v39), causing Matrix skin to break
- Fixed issue setting passwords on albums (since recent security update)
- Now using digitized date as a fallback if camera date is missing
- Fixed issue with 360 images being scaled too much
- Checkbox List items now borderless
- More robust AlbumBean.getVars() (could return null)
The new Windows image readers, just like their Mac counterparts, are clever enough to do the initial (largest version) image scaling while loading the image. This reduces RAM requirements during builds and speeds up consecutive image scaling, especially noticeable if you're using any of the slow non-standard high quality image scalers jAlbum providers (for instance Smooth - Lanczos).
Example:
Project size: 57 HEIC images
Image size: 1200x900 pixels (no variants)
Output format: JPEG
Album make using standard (JDeli) HEIC reader and Smooth - Lanczos scaling: 1 min, 57s
Album make using Windows HEIC reader and Smooth - Lanczos scaling: 1 min, 2s
Album make using Windows HEIC reader and Windows Fant scaling: 38.5s
The fact that the Windows image readers does the initial scaling in native code actually cut the ordinary scaling time down to 1/3 when using Smooth - Lanczos as scaler.
To see what things jAlbum spends time on during an album build, open the system console after a build and hit CTRL/CMD + P. This prints a report on the top-20 most time consuming activities. It also reveals what image reader, writer and scaler was used.
For example:
Classic HEIC reader and Smooth - Lanczos scaler:
CustomScaler.scale: 169 calls 1m 45.47s
Reading: HEIC JDeli Image Reader: 88 calls 1m 36.717s
Scale to fit 1200x900: 55 calls 1m 22.479s
Scale to fit 800x400: 55 calls 47.485s
Scale to fit 476x380: 2 calls 2.935s
Writing: GeoSolutions TurboJPEG Writer: 169 calls 2.794s
Scale to fit 400x200: 55 calls 2.393s
AlbumBean.processFilters: 281 calls 2.008s
Windows HEIC reader and Windows Fant scaler:
Reading: jAlbum Windows Native Reader: 88 calls 35.722s
Writing: GeoSolutions TurboJPEG Writer: 169 calls 2.423s
Scale to fit 800x400: 55 calls 1.516s
WinImageScaler.scale: 114 calls 1.401s
RecoveryTool.createLifeboat: 1 calls 0.662s
AlbumBean.registerVariables: 61 calls 0.559s
AlbumBean.processFilters: 281 calls 0.54s
(Notice that the expensive Scale to fit 1200x900 is gone now (handled by the reader) |
|
|
Posts:
8,222
Registered:
31-Jan-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
10 Mar 26, 13:23
in response to: davidekholm
|
|
|
- Supports signing in and up via Google, Apple and GitHub in addition to classic username+password signin.
If someone signs up with Google, e.g., what kind of forum/profile page username does that produce?
* More robust init
Why does this vague statement worry me? 
* Fixed missing AlbumImage.saveImage call (since v39), causing Matrix skin to break
Wow, now you're raising things from the dead! Had to dig out the old code to see what I was using it for. That said, no one should still be using that skin. There are other problems, including the fact that it's ill-suited to mobiles. I'm surprised the underlying lightbox script is still behaving - its developer abandoned it in 2011.  |
|
|
Posts:
8,222
Registered:
31-Jan-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
10 Mar 26, 13:38
in response to: JeffTucker
|
|
|
|
|
First launch after installation produces a minor annoyance, attached. After a login, things return to normal. But I had trouble remembering my password.
ETA: And on the Mac, at least, when I did login, a popup told me that I still have eight unused gift cards to give away. You never retire anything, do you?  |
|
|
Posts:
326
Registered:
25-Mar-2005
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
10 Mar 26, 14:01
in response to: JeffTucker
|
|
|
If someone signs up with Google, e.g., what kind of forum/profile page username does that produce?
If you sign up using for example Google you'll get to a simplified jAlbum-signup form, where a username based on your email is suggested. But you can change that to whatever available username you like. "Name" is a also suggested. "Email" is read-only. And there is no password field. You can there also start a storage trial (as usual) and have to agree to our T & C.
I'll probably deploy the web parts later today. |
|
|
Posts:
3,922
Registered:
18-Oct-2002
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
10 Mar 26, 18:56
in response to: JeffTucker
|
|
|
First launch after installation produces a minor annoyance, attached. After a login, things return to normal. But I had trouble remembering my password.
Sorry, luckily that should only happen with beta testers having used an earlier v39.3 beta. |
|
|
Posts:
326
Registered:
25-Mar-2005
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
10 Mar 26, 20:20
in response to: AnCa
|
|
|
I'll probably deploy the web parts later today.
They have been deployed now, so there are new "Continue with ..." buttons on the sign in form. |
|
|
Posts:
824
Registered:
13-Apr-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
11 Mar 26, 10:32
in response to: davidekholm
|
|
|
v39.3 is around the corner now. Here's the current beta:
To see what things jAlbum spends time on during an album build, open the system console after a build and hit CTRL/CMD + P. This prints a report on the top-20 most time consuming activities. It also reveals what image reader, writer and scaler was used.
My results, I use the default values.
Input
=======
13,260 Pictures
908 Videos
1,371 Others
612.32 GB
16,542 Files
Output
=======
61.95 GB
40,502 Files
3,744 Folders
______________________________________________________________________
Writing: AVIF Image Writer: 28869 calls 113m 11,046s
Reading: jAlbum Windows Native Reader: 4167 calls 12m 7,513s
HardwareSmoothScaler.scale: 15619 calls 10m 24,454s
Reading: GeoSolutions TurboJPEG Reader: 10521 calls 8m 41,403s
Scale to fit 500x282: 14380 calls 7m 27,654s
Scale to fit 40000x4000: 1233 calls 6m 25,424s
Process compiled expression: 879 calls 5m 40,567s
predir processing: 876 calls 5m 37,973s
AlbumBean.registerVariables: 78944 calls 4m 54,388s
Color profile filter: 2400 calls 3m 59,36s
AlbumObjectImpl.getXmpManager: 74982 calls 2m 48,41s
AlbumObjectImpl.getMetadata: 77738 calls 2m 43,646s
AlbumObjectImpl.getProperties: 89068 calls 1m 19,062s
AlbumObjectProperties.load: 89070 calls 1m 17,805s
FileFilters.getBasicImageInfo: 77464 calls 25,091s
Writing pages: 2671 calls 23,031s
Make views: 1 calls 20,41s
JAlbumUtilities.countCategories: 7977 calls 14,035s
AlbumBean.makeIndexPages: 876 calls 14,029s
AlbumBean.getFolderProperties: 77779 calls 13,845s
AlbumBean.processFilters: 71977 calls 12,905s
Reading: Standard JPEG Image Reader: 8 calls 6,638s
Scale to fit 8192x4096: 18 calls 6,43s
AlbumBean.popVars: 73886 calls 5,944s
Executing compiled scriptlet: 116389 calls 5,916s
RotationSupport.adjustOrientation: 14688 calls 4,802s
Create MediaRSS: 876 calls 4,694s
BetterMediumScaler.scale: 22 calls 3,714s
JSONMaker.makeTree: 1 calls 3,521s
init: 1 calls 2,942s
JAlbumUtilities.getDeepCameraDates: 876 calls 2,817s
Executing interpreted scriptlet: 120414 calls 2,681s
AlbumBean.pushVars: 73887 calls 2,219s
Reading file attributes: 16651 calls 1,726s
JSONMaker.makeDataPages: 876 calls 1,158s
WinDecoder.open: 11793 calls 1,099s
Compiling scriptlets: 110935 calls 0,616s
Making deep-data.json: 1 calls 0,577s
Scale to fit 4096x2048: 4 calls 0,474s
JAlbumUtilities.countWebLocationCategories: 992 calls 0,444s
AlbumBean.countTotalFiles: 1 calls 0,208s
Clone image: 5 calls 0,082s
Compiling script: 4 calls 0,063s
FileFilters.getMetaData: 15 calls 0,058s
AlbumImage Scale to fit 1200x900: 1 calls 0,056s
AlbumImage Scale to fit 1240x698: 1 calls 0,048s
AlbumImage Scale to fit 1600x720: 1 calls 0,043s
AlbumImage Scale to fit 3760x720: 1 calls 0,04s
AlbumImage Scale to fit 800x360: 1 calls 0,038s
AlbumImage Scale to fit 1880x360: 1 calls 0,02s
Apply color profile: 4 calls 0,015s
Writing: GeoSolutions TurboJPEG Writer: 1 calls 0,012s
Listing skins: 7 calls 0,01s
Icon loading: 3 calls 0,006s
Process expression: 1 calls 0,003s
WinImageReaderSpi.canDecodeInput: 16 calls 0,002s
Copy res files: 1 calls 0,001s
Total: 1269873 calls 189m 41,168s
|
|
|
Posts:
3,922
Registered:
18-Oct-2002
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
11 Mar 26, 10:39
in response to: MarkusD
|
|
|
|
Marcus, what "AVIF speed" setting do you use?
|
|
|
Posts:
824
Registered:
13-Apr-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
11 Mar 26, 10:44
in response to: davidekholm
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus, what "AVIF speed" setting do you use?
See screenshot.
By the way. The Dropdown-Field for „Dia-Bilder“ is to short, please widen it. Thanks. |
|
|
Posts:
3,922
Registered:
18-Oct-2002
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
11 Mar 26, 10:47
in response to: MarkusD
|
|
|
|
I see. I'll try to polish the size a bit. If you find AVIF writing too slow, consider using speed 8. You'll then get far faster AVIF writing at a very small size cost.
|
|
|
Posts:
67
Registered:
16-Jul-2014
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
11 Mar 26, 10:47
in response to: davidekholm
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have attached the Dutch translation for jAlbum 39.3, which includes reworded 'force-remake' and 'make-test' descriptions and tooltips.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,922
Registered:
18-Oct-2002
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
11 Mar 26, 10:49
in response to: ronvanrossum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
824
Registered:
13-Apr-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
11 Mar 26, 10:50
in response to: davidekholm
|
|
|
My computer:
Prozessor Intel(R) Core(TM) Ultra 7 265K (3.90 GHz)
Installierter RAM 96,0 GB (95,4 GB verwendbar)
Systemtyp 64-Bit-Betriebssystem, x64-basierter Prozessor
Stift- und Toucheingabe Für diese Anzeige ist keine Stift- oder Toucheingabe verfügbar.
|
|
|
Posts:
824
Registered:
13-Apr-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: jAlbum 39.3 beta for testing
Posted:
11 Mar 26, 11:00
in response to: davidekholm
|
|
|
I see. I'll try to polish the size a bit. If you find AVIF writing too slow, consider using speed 8. You'll then get far faster AVIF writing at a very small size cost.
My report was not to say, that it was too slow. This is only slow once, so I'm fine with that. I'm after good looking pictures. 
To me all these settings (including the one for scaling and the different readers and writes) are highly compilcating stuff. There should be an easier solution to let the user present two slideres:
Speed to process pictures
Slow | Medium | Fast
Quality of processed pictures
Poor | Good | Perfect
That's it, no more fancy options which no user understands. |
|
|
|
Legend
|
|
Forum admins
|
|
Helpful Answer
|
|
Correct Answer
|
|
