Re: [PATCH] Frame large images with a small file size.

[Jaap Haitsma <jaap haitsma org>]

Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 22:28 +0100, Jaap Haitsma wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > This has to do with one of my previous mails:
> > "[PATCH]Images of the same size are displayed with a different size in
> > the preview" (bug http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153073 )
> >
> > If that patch get accepted we also might add a frame to the images that
> > get displayed at the size of a thumbnail. The attached patch does this
> >
> > Screenshot before patch:
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=34298&action=view
> > Screenshot after patch:
> > image-as-itself-with-frame.png
> >
> > The patch is attached.
>
>
> I applied all the patches. Thanks a lot.
>
> I have one further request. Using image-as-itself-with-frame does make
> large icons in /usr/share/pixmap look a bit weird. Could you perhaps
> check if the icon has an alpha buffer, and if it does, don't use the
> frame, as its likely to not be rectangular then. 

Good point! I'll look into this.


> Also, another thing related to this. I've gotten requests for using the
> image as itself when scaling images with thumbnails so that they are
> larger than 128x128. I.E. use thumbnail when smaller, but read full file
> and scale down when its made large.

I'm afraid I do not understand you :-(. Can you try explaining it 
another time?

> > When making this patch I noticed that thumbnails that get stored in the
> > .thumbnail directory actually have a size of 128 and have a frame
> > included. (NOTE when I'm referring to size of an image it is the maximum
> > of the horizontal and the vertical size). If the zoom level is set to
> > "Normal Size" thumbnails have a size of 96 and one zoom level higher
> > they have a size of 144.
>
>
> The size of the thumbnails is specified by the icon theme specification
> at freedesktop.org and is used by other apps too. I don't think we can
> change it like that.
Pity that most of the applications (I know of nautilus, eog and gthumb) 
seem to scale them down to 96 and therefore a lot of CPU time is wasted :-(

On another note. The thumbnail size in pixels is not specified in 
gnome-thumbnail.h. Therefore Nautilus hardcodes 128 in it's code. (IMO A 
bit ugly)

Wouldn't it be better to do in gnome-thumbnail.h

typedef enum {
  GNOME_THUMBNAIL_SIZE_NORMAL = 128,
  GNOME_THUMBNAIL_SIZE_LARGE  = 256
} GnomeThumbnailSize;

instead of

typedef enum {
  GNOME_THUMBNAIL_SIZE_NORMAL,
  GNOME_THUMBNAIL_SIZE_LARGE
} GnomeThumbnailSize;

Then nautilus can just use the enum to do the calculations for thumbnail 
sizes.

Jaap

BTW is the large thumbnail size used in the GNOME desktop?