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