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

[Elia Cogodi <eliacogodi tin it>]

On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 08:47 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 21:26 +0100, Jaap Haitsma wrote:
> > Alexander Larsson wrote:
...
> Now I select "Stretch Icon" from the menu and make the icon 200x200
> pixels. If we continue to use the thumbnail for this it'll look pretty
> fuzzy. What I would like is for it to switch to using the actual file as
> the thumbnail for sizes > 128 pixels. This would make the icon look
> crisp and nice.
> 
> > 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.
> 
...

A minor point, maybe, but in the light of the upcoming Cairo and the 
whole idea of resolution-indipendent display systems, shouldn't all the 
limits be converted from fixed sizes ( generally thought for 96-110 dpi displays)
to resolution limits? i.e. take in account the display dpi to calculate
the generated thumb dpi and recalculate it from image if the resolution
falls under a _resolution_ limit of, say, 75 dpi. 
After all, an icon stretched to 129 pixels can still be pretty crisp on
a 300 dpi, 5" VGA screen :)



-- 
Elia Cogodi <eliacogodi tin it>