[Digikam-users] Thumbnails blury in digiKam 1.0.0

[Gilles Caulier]

2010/1/19 Stedtlund <falolaf at gmail.com>:
> 2010/1/18 Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com>:
>> This can be relevant of PGF compression level. In digiKam, thumbs
>> compression is there :
>>
>> http://lxr.kde.org/source/extragear/graphics/digikam/libs/threadimageio/thumbnailcreator.cpp#501
>>
>> Last value passed to this method is compression level. Try 3 or 2 to
>> see if quality is better. You need to force digiKam to rebuild
>> thumbnails of course.
>
> This implies that I need to build digiKam manually. I'ts not
> impossible, but a little cumbersome as I have not done this before.
>
> I looked a little of the source above and there is another thing one
> can try, that's changing dbInfo.type = DatabaseThumbnail::PGF to
> something else. Unfortunately this i a hard coded value, it might be a
> candidate to have this one configurable from settings or config file.
> Also the third parameter to writePGFImageData could be configurable in
> some way.
>
>>
>> Note : perhaps it's a problem in LibPGF. I recommend to as to PGF team
>> also, just to be sure...
>
> I can do that. Where can I get in contact with them?

Look there : http://www.libpgf.org/

There is a forum in SF.net

Gilles

Gilles

>
>>
>> Gilles Caulier
>>
>> 2010/1/18 Stedtlund <falolaf at gmail.com>:
>>> 2010/1/18 Vlado Plaga <rechner at vlado-do.de>:
>>>> Am Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:36:09 +0100
>>>> schrieb Stedtlund <falolaf at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> After upgrading to digiKam most of the thumbnails are blury.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean upgrading digiKam 0.10 (or earlier) to 1.0?
>>> Yes, that's what I mean. A miss from my side.
>>>
>>>>The internal
>>>> thumbnails format changed. The change is described in the changelog as
>>>> follows:
>>>>
>>>> "General : digiKam use a new database to cache thumbnails instead
>>>> ~./thumbnails. File format used to store image is PGF
>>>> (http://www.libpgf.org). PGF is a wavelets based image compression
>>>> format and give space optimizations."
>>> I read that too, but I thougth that was going to be possitive...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also noticed a decline in thumbnail quality, but I did not consider
>>>> it problematic enough to write a bug report for it. But maybe you could
>>>> open one?
>>> I can do that!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I wrote in a comment on a bug report related to this change in
>>>> digiKam thumbnail storage, I'd still prefer a thumbnail directory
>>>> shared between applications... but since the type of directory proposed
>>>> there (with subdirectories made of MD5 hash sums) apparently does not
>>>> exist for thumbnails yet, this would be a fair amount of work for
>>>> digiKam developers:
>>>> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210580#c15
>>>>
>>>>> Are there any parameters to tune to get better results?
>>>>
>>>> That would be a useful option indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Vlado
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Digikam-users mailing list
>>>> Digikam-users at kde.org
>>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Digikam-users mailing list
>>> Digikam-users at kde.org
>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Digikam-users mailing list
>> Digikam-users at kde.org
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>