caulier.gilles at gmail.com
Sun Jun 14 14:35:42 CEST 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.
For me, as Mik said, JPEG give artifact on thumbs, with 256x256 size,
especially with image which have geometric forms (wall, houses,
momuments) or high subject contrast as flowers taken in macro mode and
with large zone with same colors ( it's not visible with complex
images composition with high levels of details) . Sound like
anti-aliasing is not visible.
I tried 90 compression instead 85, but it still visible.
I cannot see this problem with PGF...
> 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)
> For me creation time is not important, because this is done once, but
> pregenerated thumbnail loading time, which is done everytime.
> Btw, once all thumbnails are built, because of the shortcomings that Andi
> mentioned, it is a benchmark of pregenerated thumbnail loading when running
> the "Rebuild Thumbnail -> Scan" dialog - it will load all existing thumbnails.
> Digikam-devel mailing list
> Digikam-devel at kde.org
More information about the Digikam-devel