Dont re-thumb on F5

[surrender]

If i hit F5 in the already thumbed photos folder it starts to re-thumb. it doesnt matter which view mode i am in, for eg. if i hit F5 in details mode and switch to thumbs mode it re-thumbs again. It can be annoying if you have lots of pics in a folder.

[admin]

If i hit F5 in the already thumbed photos folder it starts to re-thumb. it doesnt matter which view mode i am in, for eg. if i hit F5 in details mode and switch to thumbs mode it re-thumbs again. It can be annoying if you have lots of pics in a folder.

My gosh... fixed. Thanks!

[surrender]

Oh thanks!! Works fine now.

Two questions though:
1) Is there a way to cache everything (find and browse) in one go? Right now i have to go folder by folder to cache (unlike find cache). I am looking for one magic button for both caches.
2) Also is it possible that if i cache pics for the highest possible resolution (320x320) the other smaller resolutions need not be recached at a later time.

[admin]

Generally, I'm aware that there's room for improvement in the thumb caching.

1) Is there a way to cache everything (find and browse) in one go? Right now i have to go folder by folder to cache (unlike find cache). I am looking for one magic button for both caches.
2) Also is it possible that if i cache pics for the highest possible resolution (320x320) the other smaller resolutions need not be recached at a later time.

1) No, currently not. I separated browse caching from find results caching to keep the cache files small in browse caching, and the caching fast in find results caching. So, once the caching is done, it's extremely small and fast. You are paying the price for this during the caching...

2) I had the same idea already.
The advantages:
- only one time caching for all sizes
- only one cache file for all sizes
- I could offer *all* thumb sizes, not only the ones I'm offering now. You could set your preferred sizes with scrollbars for width and height. You know, the only reason why I'm currently offering only a limited set of sizes is to keep the number of cache files that have to be created for each size down!

The disadvantages:
- the cache file will be quite large even if you use only small thumbnails
- the thumb quality will be lower because of 2-pass-stretching/shrinking

Of course, I could make the cached size configurable so you could control the size of the cache file and that one thumb size with maximal rendering quality because no further stretching/shrinking is necessary.

Actually, I would vote for one-cache-for-all! What about your and other opinions?

[j_c_hallgren]

This is a partial reply, as I may likely think of more things later, but...
I don't use thumbs very often...tried them more when I first started using XY...however, depending on what I'm doing and which folders I'm working in, I sometimes will turn them on..

Now, as it is, I can go to my thumb cache folder, and look thru the .DAT2 files to see which folders/files and settings I've used, and then delete the file pairs that I don't plan to use again, which would be handled how with only one cache file??? This ability to clean up thumbs that are for folders that have been deleted, or for sizes that one won't use again is one possible advantage for present scheme, true?

I presently have 15 sets of cache files totaling about 10MB...this is using almost entirely a 54x54 size, so how much bigger would a cache file be with proposed scheme?

In some cases, I have temporarily bumped my thumb size to a larger one but then after doing the tasks needed, deleted those cache files to free up the unneeded space...If there was only one cache, and size was based on my typical 54x54, and then I wanted to do some temporary work at a much larger size, how would that be handled?

These are just some things that I've thought of initially...

[admin]

Now, as it is, I can go to my thumb cache folder, and look thru the .DAT2 files to see which folders/files and settings I've used, and then delete the file pairs that I don't plan to use again, which would be handled how with only one cache file??? This ability to clean up thumbs that are for folders that have been deleted, or for sizes that one won't use again is one possible advantage for present scheme, true?

No, one-cache-for-all means one cache for all sizes but still one cache per folder.

I presently have 15 sets of cache files totaling about 10MB...this is using almost entirely a 54x54 size, so how much bigger would a cache file be with proposed scheme?

That would depend on the "base size" you set for the cache. At 320 x 320 it would be about 35 times larger! Sounds horrible, but it starts looking better when you are using different thumb sizes in one folder which currently means creating a new cache file for each size.

In some cases, I have temporarily bumped my thumb size to a larger one but then after doing the tasks needed, deleted those cache files to free up the unneeded space...If there was only one cache, and size was based on my typical 54x54, and then I wanted to do some temporary work at a much larger size, how would that be handled?

Thumbs would be (proportionally) stretched from 54x54 to any larger size you want. Naturally at a poorer quality than would be if not stretched.

[j_c_hallgren]

That would depend on the "base size" you set for the cache. At 320 x 320 it would be about 35 times larger! Sounds horrible, but it starts looking better when you are using different thumb sizes in one folder which currently means creating a new cache file for each size.

In my case, the other sizes that I use are 96x96 and 128x96, and my largest single .DBITS file is about 1500KB...so that would definitely mean a LARGE increase in file size, if I understand it correctly...and when/if I use one of my larger sizes, I now still maintain the smaller one intact for later use, as I'd likely delete the bigger ones when I'm done...but now, to confirm 100%, would all three sizes be stored in the same file or just the one 'basis'/default size?

If there was only one cache, and size was based on my typical 54x54, and then I wanted to do some temporary work at a much larger size, how would that be handled?

Thumbs would be (proportionally) stretched from 54x54 to any larger size you want. Naturally at a poorer quality than would be if not stretched.

The main reason I'd use bigger thumbs is to have much better resolution at that larger size, so this appears to then partially defeat that, maybe?

[surrender]

Generally, I'm aware that there's room for improvement in the thumb caching.

1) Is there a way to cache everything (find and browse) in one go? Right now i have to go folder by folder to cache (unlike find cache). I am looking for one magic button for both caches.
2) Also is it possible that if i cache pics for the highest possible resolution (320x320) the other smaller resolutions need not be recached at a later time.

1) No, currently not. I separated browse caching from find results caching to keep the cache files small in browse caching, and the caching fast in find results caching. So, once the caching is done, it's extremely small and fast. You are paying the price for this during the caching...

OK. I accept that "find" and "browse" caches have to separate. But regarding browse cache: is there a faster way to cache? because if somebody has many folders then it is not so pleasant to keep clicking folders one by one to cache them (especially with the bigger thumbs the wait is longer).

2) I had the same idea already.
The advantages:
- only one time caching for all sizes
- only one cache file for all sizes
- I could offer *all* thumb sizes, not only the ones I'm offering now. You could set your preferred sizes with scrollbars for width and height. You know, the only reason why I'm currently offering only a limited set of sizes is to keep the number of cache files that have to be created for each size down!

The disadvantages:
- the cache file will be quite large even if you use only small thumbnails
- the thumb quality will be lower because of 2-pass-stretching/shrinking

Of course, I could make the cached size configurable so you could control the size of the cache file and that one thumb size with maximal rendering quality because no further stretching/shrinking is necessary.

Actually, I would vote for one-cache-for-all! What about your and other opinions?

I too vote for this. But does the browsing become slower since XY has to shrink or stretch if the cached size is different from viewing size. Thats my only worry

[admin]

...

Just the one 'basis'/default size would be stored. Another disadvantage of the one-size-fits-all method I forgot to mention:
- display would be slightly slower because stretching is more work.

Yes, to have a small base size cached and then select a larger thumb size for display does not give you more information but just more blur.

[admin]

OK. I accept that "find" and "browse" caches have to separate. But regarding browse cache: is there a faster way to cache? because if somebody has many folders then it is not so pleasant to keep clicking folders one by one to cache them (especially with the bigger thumbs the wait is longer).

Currently not.

But does the browsing become slower since XY has to shrink or stretch if the cached size is different from viewing size. Thats my only worry

Yes, slightly. But since only the thumbs are generated you see within the visible part of the list, the difference will be very small.

Generally: I have a lot of other things on my mind and hands right now (e.g. catalog aliases! ). So let's delay the thumbs/cache issue for some weeks!