XYplorer Beta Club

Filehero wrote:

TheQwerty wrote:Don only changed the factory defaults - they don't get applied when upgrading or else they be overwriting the user's existing settings.

But shouldn't the 64-option at least be added to the pull-down list in the settings so every long-time user can get the new factory settings easily?

/e: I mean here

Code: Select all

ThumbSizes=30,40,54,72,96,128,180,240,320

Current versions have it. Since this affects only the factory defaults I don't have to act.

Filehero wrote:But shouldn't the 64-option at least be added to the pull-down list in the settings so every long-time user can get the new factory settings easily?

*shrugs* Don would need to either hard-code some of the options or add upgrade cases to not blow away a ThumbSizes which has been tweaked.

He could probably safely add 64 to ThumbSizes if it isn't already there but that means an additional check when reading/using that value.

There's just no good solution for all upgraders.


EDIT: I take that last statement back.
There is one other solution - remove ThumbSizes and replace the drop-down lists with text fields.
Why we need a tweak to control what options are available is beyond me.

TheQwerty wrote:He could probably safely add 64 to ThumbSizes if it isn't already there but that means an additional check when reading/using that value. .

This what I had in mind, I simply couldn't set the thumbs to 64 w/o tweaking the key in the ini before. I considered that finding "sort of a bug". But why does that mean an additonal check? Doesn't that key simply define what is shown in the pull-down menu before the current value is set?

But I better stop that discussion here, because I've nevertheless become quite confident that it's indeed me whose brain is under-performing right now. The tiles are more exciting.

Filehero wrote:But why does that mean an additonal check? Doesn't that key simply define what is shown in the pull-down menu before the current value is set?

Indeed that key controls the values in the menu, but if Don just tacks on 64 without checking for it then there could be two 64s in the list. This likely wouldn't cause any real problems aside from making the list ugly, but I'd imagine more upgraders would report duplicate 64s as a bug than astute change-log reading upgraders would notice 64 is missing from the list.

There's also the future to consider. Right now it is just 64, but if Don wants to add other default values this would need to be done for each one meaning the code just grows more complex. Worse still, it's impossible to solve the removing of a default option in a similar way.


That said, I stand by my edit to the previous post - why have ThumbSizes at all? What's the point of this restricted list of options when tile thumbs are using text fields?

Don, it doesn't seem to want to cycle between large tile adjusted extra info size (i.e., expanded but autosized) and fully collapsed. Ctrl Numpad Minus zpluscollapses fully just fine, but Ctrl Numpad Plus always expands to a fully expanded size with excessive white space as I showed in my example picture earlier today. Is there some trick to locking in what used to be the autosized column with minimum white space and then cycling between that and fully collapsed with Ctrl Numpad Plus? If I adjust my columns so I have the space I want for the extra info (approx. what used to be autosize) and then hit Ctrl Numpad Plus it first goes to the fully expanded excessive white space size. When I hit it again and it goes to fully collapsed. Unless I'm missing something, maybe this change fouled column autosize in some way or by trying to accomplish 2 things with one key combo. Thanks.

TheQwerty wrote: - why have ThumbSizes at all? What's the point of this restricted list of options when tile thumbs are using text fields?

Now, I see (yesterday, I seemed to have parked my brain just like Philae, grrrr). Makes sense.

@Don: does the thumbs generation speed scales linearly?

TheQwerty wrote:That said, I stand by my edit to the previous post - why have ThumbSizes at all? What's the point of this restricted list of options when tile thumbs are using text fields?

What's the point of this restricted list of options:
a) Helps keeping the number of cache files small
b) Selecting is quicker than typing

The same points are true for Tiles views, of course, so yes, there is an inconsistency now.

klownboy wrote:Don, it doesn't seem to want to cycle between large tile adjusted extra info size (i.e., expanded but autosized) and fully collapsed. Ctrl Numpad Minus collapses fully just fine, but Ctrl Numpad Plus always expands to a fully expanded size with excessive white space as I showed in my example picture earlier today. Is there some trick to locking in what used to be the autosized column with minimum white space and then cycling between that and fully collapsed with Ctrl Numpad Plus? If I adjust my columns so I have the space I want for the extra info (approx. what used to be autosize) and then hit Ctrl Numpad Plus it first goes to the fully expanded excessive white space size. When I hit it again and it goes to fully collapsed. Unless I'm missing something, maybe this change fouled column autosize in some way or by trying to accomplish 2 things with one key combo. Thanks.

I don't see how it could not work. Where does Ctrl Numpad Plus point to in your configuration?

Ctrl Numpad Minus? I don't have that KS. What does it point to?

Sorry Don, I didn't intend to say "Minus", I edited the post to say "Plus". I reread you beta notes and it's doing as you noted. I think however the ideal situation would be to cycle between an autosized state (or last user adjusted state) to a fully collapsed state. The optimal size showing the longest file name is just way too wide in most cases so it ends up being tremendous waste of space to a point where If set it myself I'd get twice the number of tiles across the screen. You know how it is, you always end up with some file which has a very long file name that will negating the usefulness of the function. Thanks.

By the way, nice idea to carry over to the thumbnails view.

What about calculating the optimal width from the text data *without* the name?

admin wrote:What about calculating the optimal width from the text data *without* the name?

Yes, that would be wide enough. I was looking at some example to check before I replied. It looks like the Date/Time lines as well as the Camera Model and even the Exposure time would be wide enough. The portions of the Filename not shown would then be replace with "..." as you do now when using Ctrl+Shift+Numpad Minus. I think that would be idea. A user can always hover to get the "rest" of the name. Thanks.

Basic Photo data: Should the fieldnames be shown, or isn't it cooler to just show the data?

C:\Users\Donald\Pictures\Shot\SSANMA003.jpg
698 KB
2014-11-15 20:53:08
800 x 1200 [2:3]
Kameramodell: Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
Blendenzahl: F/5.6
Belichtungszeit: 1/200 Sek.
ISO-Filmempfindlichkeit: ISO-400

C:\Users\Donald\Pictures\Shot\SSANMA003.jpg
698 KB
2014-11-15 20:53:08
800 x 1200 [2:3]
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
F/5.6
1/200 Sek.
ISO-400

Which is cooler? For me it's the latter...

In theory, for the latter you could even group some info into one line, like:

698 KB 2014-11-15 20:53:08

or, even better:

F/5.6 1/200 Sek. ISO-400

Yes, please just the data. (Wanted to suggest the grouping of thata, as PeterH just did, already yesterday. +1)

BTW, why is the selection for 64x64 for thumbnails not possible?

admin wrote:What's the point of this restricted list of options:
a) Helps keeping the number of cache files small
b) Selecting is quicker than typing

Eh... I'm not sure I buy that either of those is significant.

a) I believe any impact here is only due to the list being less error-prone. There's no typo creating awkward 31x33 thumbs and its less likely that the selected sizes will be so close to each other (#1: 30x30, #2: 32x32) to be wasteful.

The biggest impact should come from not changing the sizes frequently and using the same size for tiles and thumbs so there's a maximum of 3 sizes in the cache instead of 5 or more.

b) I bet the difference is minimal except in cases when the desired size is not in the list - then typing wins by a mile.


Keeping it a list is cool but I think:
1) The tile sizes should be drop-downs too.
2) The factory defaults (30,40,54,64,72,96,128,180,240,320) should be reconsidered.

Most of the images I deal with are square icons so I find some of those really awkward.
I suggest: 32,48,64,72,96,128,192,240,256,320
But I'm not sure photogs would agree with those.