caulier.gilles at gmail.com
Sat Jun 13 16:17:37 BST 2009
2009/6/13 Marcel Wiesweg <marcel.wiesweg at gmx.de>:
>> Result are better than PGF, from speed and space consumption point...
> For me results with JPEG are better as well.
> I have an average size of 11KB per thumbnail (db file size / number of stored
> Most important for me: Subjectively, loading is faster than with PGF. (With
> maximum number of icons visible - no sidebars, fullscreen, minimum thumbnail
> size - I can mouse wheel scroll at a reasonable fast speed without seeing
> missing thumbnails)
Well, what better then ? JPEG as well with a compression ratio upper
than 75 (default Qt = 75) ? I recommend 85 instead...
Mik, do you have tried 85 JPEG quality ? And in this case, DB will be
bigger : which size compared to PGF ?
> For me creation time is not important, because this is done once, but
> pregenerated thumbnail loading time, which is done everytime.
Agree but it give info about algorithm optimization. For ex, JPEG2000
is a mess in this case...
I'm in contact with libPGF team. I will ask speed optimization
question comparing to JPEG.
More information about the Digikam-devel