XXHighEnd

G'day Peter,

would it be possible to have a tickable option when creating the galleries to ONLY create the folder.jpg and back.jpg entries ?

I'm thinking it should dramatically speed up the presentation of the galleries if only those items are handled, and would be helpful in minimising the storage space needed, which is particularly useful when the galleries are residing on small SSD's. As SSD's become bigger and pricing drops further then if you subsequently wish to create galleries containing all coverart then simply remove the tick from that option.

I could do it myself manually, simply by using the explorers search function, and cull out all other jpegs etc not wanted, but a built in solution would be better.

Further to this, perhaps when creating galleries in this way, there could be a marker of some sort, in the right panel, to indicate there is additional coverart available to browse, should you wish, using the inbuilt explorer options available when rightclicking on the folder art in the middle panel. Or better yet, by simply clicking on that marker, you have an explorer window opened for you.

Food for thought?

Russ ( always thinking of better ways to build a mousetrap :) )

Mwah Russ, probably a good idea but not sure if *I* would use it. haha. But tell me, did you do this already : Resize Coverart 0.9y-5 (more advanced useage) (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=953.0) ?

I'm sure this will free up 75% of what you have in use, at least.
Don't think it doesn't work (for quality), just try it. So, it's the other way around : everybody has gone crazy with their scans of 600dpi and 20MB+ scans while 1MB *really* is enough (oh, that's a factor of 20).

Peter (almost always at your service :))

WOW ... someone is up early ... or hasn't gone to sleep yet !

Yes, I'm aware of the resizing function, but haven't used it. I prefer using Photoshops batch function processing for something like that.

For a while now I've been using 500x500 for folder.jpg size ( averages about 80KB ), and 750x750 up to 1024x1024 depending upon how much info and the size of the fonts used for the back.jpg. When you have lots of albums though it all takes a little longer to process. The SSD make a huge improvement, but like most things involving speed, when you've had a taste you just want more .. haha

Certainly no demand on my part for the optional function. Just throwing an idea into the hat that's all.

Cheers,

Russ

Russ,

You can't do those things in any Photoshop or anything. And 1000x1000 certainly isn't enough for reading booklets. Just hat you know ...
But as I said, just try it. :yes:

Peter

err .. I beg to differ actually  :whistle:

Within Photoshop you use "file/scripts/image processor" and you get a panel shown below. Select your folder, specify the boundary size parameters, and the images within that folder(s) will be resized to fit accordingly and maintain their original aspect ratio.

I agree that 1000x1000 is 'sometimes' a little too small to read some of the booklets, but a large amount can be read comfortably using a height of 750 to 900 pixels in height. Unless you are using a digital panel rather than a CRT monitor, in which case all bets are off .. LOL

Cheers,

Russ

Haha Russ - But we know that, don't we ? That's why I keep on saying, try it. Or read a bit of that link, also sufficient. But to summarize :

Let's say you have a 1000 albums and 5000 pictures going along with it (the 5000 would be on the very low side these days).
Now first think of *which* ones you want to resize. That's problem one (you'd only want to do the ones which are too large for KB size), and next you wouldn't want to up"size", next there's folder.jpg (and back.jpg) which you want to have another (smaller) size because they can have it. Lastly you wouldn't want to degrade the picture unnessearily. Maybe there's something more in the sequence (eh, workflow :)).
All this is taken care of with obviously our objective 100% in mind (Photoshop etc. won't know a thing about our objectives).

All this is taken care of in a few minutes and it will be as optimized as can be without any visible degradation for the purpose we have with it (which does not include a poster on Melbourne's largest building haha).

Your first (and easiest task) would be to create a 3000x3000 of 1MB out of the 12000x12000 xx(x)MB which is as sharp as can be at the almost full size (read : too large for your screen) you will get from that (one page of the booklet).

Happy hunting !
Peter

But when you have done one, you are going to do a next one and you are going to tell me how long that next one took, ok ?
Might you think you have found a good modus to do that in an acceptable time (which is ?), do a third of another album.

But better grasp a nice cold beer !! :) :)

OK ... you win .. haha.

I must have wagged school when you posted that feature review 12 months ago , and didn't appreciate how powerful it is. Guess I should have known better .. oops!

I'll go stand in the corner now  :blush1:

Russ ( the ol' dog who is learning new tricks )