Start a new topic
Implemented

Option to create artist thumbnails in different aspect ratios

 It would be great, if I could set a different aspect ratio for my artist thumbnails (1:1, 4:3, 16:10, 16:9).


This would give me back some unused space in artist related views.


Should the values be relative to the selected thumbnail size or static?


Example if static:

Width is always 256px and height is calculated


Example if dynamic:

If thumbnail size = large, width will be 256px and height is calculated

If thumbnail size = small, width will be 144px and height is ~81px when 16:9 is selected


Relative sizes feels a bit more powerful but is also more complex to implement.

I think it should be as it is right now - relative in size, but in a static maximum frame-size.
Static frame-sizes are: 1:1 -> 256x256px, 4:3 -> 256x192px, 16:9 -> 256x144px.

Some examples:

Original image size: 1920x1200px...
...in 1:1 -> 256x160px
...in 4:3 -> 256x160px
...in 16:9 -> 230x144px

Original image size: 600x800px...
...in 1:1 -> 192x256px
...in 4:3 -> 144x192px
...in 16:9 -> 108x144px

If you think about dynamic size (L=256px width, S=144px width), you would need to recreate the thumbnails when switching size, don't you?

Sorry, now I do not follow how you mean.


Today, when a thumbnail is generated it will be generated in 256*256 pixles. Scaling will occur when needed, no cropping.


Then, when all thumbnails are generated (this takes a while the first time), they can be scaled using the thumbnail sizes without the need of being regenerated.


The same would have been possible no matter if the new modes are always 256 pixels wide with a dynamic height or having a dynamic witdth set by the thumbnails size (256 is always the maximum size).



In your example it seems like you can have various sized pictures depending on the aspect ratio on source file, this will mean that you can get odd sized pictures like you describe above which is not appliciable to a thumbnail which always have a static size of something. 

Also, what you request will result in that cache files will always needs to be regenerated fully when the aspect ratio is changed, which will be a slow operation.

(We might be talking about different things, sorry if so, but I do not quite follow the calculations shown in your post above)


Edit:

My initial thought was to keep the generating of 256*256px cache files on disc so that does only needs to be done once, and apply cropping and scling to the thumbnails when aspect rations are used in combination with thumbnail sizes (today only scaling is used)

> Today, when a thumbnail is generated it will be generated in 256*256 pixles.
That's perfectly wrong... This is only the maximum frame-size - but all thumbnails vary in real pixel counts. See the attached picture. ;-)

> In your example it seems like you can have various sized pictures depending on the aspect ratio on
> source file
Yes, that's exactly how it's working now...

> My initial thought was to keep the generating of 256*256px cache files on disc so that does only needs
> to be done once, and apply cropping and scling to the thumbnails when aspect rations are used in
> combination with thumbnail sizes (today only scaling is used)
So you would like to do cropping / scaling on the fly? Well (down-)scaling on the fly seems to be OK, but cropping may look bad, since you might have to up-scale the thumbnail...

If the thumbnail is 160x256px you'll have to pump this up to 256x410px before cropping to 256x256px...

If you're going to create thumbnails for all sizes, ratios and eventually cropping, you should create bigger thumbnails. 400x400px come to mind - this would create 250x400px instead of 160x256px from an original image with 640x1024px.
thsize.jpg
(87.4 KB)

Any chances to get this in the near future?

It's currently not queued for 12.1 which is planned to be released in the end of the next week.


It's a quite big task that needs to be tested in detail before we can say if it will work or now, testing involves performance tests (multiple thumbnails will need to be generated) as well as adopting of templates to support various scaling.



>> multiple thumbnails will need to be generated That would be one way, but I guess it would be better to simply create new thumbnails when changing this setting.

Yes, that might be a better way around it.


I wonder a bit how sizes should be treated;

1:1 - This is what we have today (assume 256*256)

4:3 - This should be 256*192

16:9 - This should be 256*144

16:10 - This should be 256*160


Is it really neccesary to have separate setups for 16:9 and 16:10 ? 

Also, one thing that complicates stuff is that today it is actually designed for 4:3, so mapping to 1:1 can make the results weird.

>> I wonder a bit how sizes should be treated 
 Your values are correct. 
 >> Is it really neccesary to have separate setups for 16:9 and 16:10 ? 
 If I can select cropping, 16:9 would suffer. 
 >> today it is actually designed for 4:3, so mapping to 1:1 can make the results weird. 
 Designed for 4:3? All thumbnails are 1:1 here!?

>> Designed for 4:3? All thumbnails are 1:1 here!?

Yes, but a standard screen will never show 1:1, it will use 4:3.


Example:

Today it looks fully correct on a display with 1920*1440 (4:3) with 256*256 thumbnails.

If this will be mapped to a "new" 4:3 mode, it should become 256*192 instead.


This behaviour needs to be further tested I think, but on the other side, this will be a user chose so it might not matter at all.

This is only about pixel-ratio for the thumbnails - not about pixel-ratio of the screen... A 16:9 thumbnail will still be correct on a 4:3 screen. ;-)
I will create a few examples, when I'm back home later today. I think we're talking about something different, because of the upper quick'n'dirty mock-ups...

Can you please share a screenshot of what this would result in?

Login or Signup to post a comment