|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Back to forum Images
Picture Resizer 1.0
2005-10-11Author: pennhaven
I just tried Picture Resizer, thinking it might be an easy to use tool for resizing digital photo images for efficient streaming to a high definition television display. My display has a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels. This requires a typical 4:3 "landscape" aspect image to be resized to 1440 x 1080 to fit the display, and a 3:4 "portrait" image to be resized to 810 x 1080.
The program works for this purpose, but I found two problems. One is a serious bug and the other points to an improvement that would make this utility nearly perfect for this application.
First, when I drag a folder containing images to PhotoResize1440.exe it not only resizes the image files in the folder to 1440x1080, but it resizes the newly created resized images, and resizes those resized images, etc., etc., until there are dozens of copies of each image. Apparently there is bug that causes the program not to limit processing to the files that were originally in the folder but rather to loop through all the image files that the program itself creates.
Second, for the purpose I described, it would be much handier to have an option that controls the resizing to the height, rather than the width. i.e., PhotoResizeH1080.exe instead of PhotoResize1440.exe. This way all images, whether portrait or landscape could be resized to a height of 1080 pixels without disturbing the aspect ratio. The existing option of PhotoResizeWxH.exe would require separating landscape and portrait images before processing.
Thankyou for developing this program and making it available. I hope that you can devote a little work to it so that it can meet it's full potential.
|
2005-10-12Author: Vlasta
Thanks for your feedback, it is much appreciated.
The bug was fixed and the suggested enhancement is sensible and was implemented.
Description of the changes is on the PhotoResizer 1.1 homepage.
|
2005-10-12Author: pennhaven
Vlasta,
I appreciate the very prompt response. However I found that the 1.1 code still requires some tweaking.
1. The recursive processing still occurs. This happens only when I drag a *folder* to the program icon, not when I drag a group of files.
2. The PhotoResizeWwwww option works as intended (which is the same as the original PhotoResizexxxx. However, the option that I need, PhotoResizeHhhhh does not work properly. I found this parameter resized the image exactly the same as the "W" option. i.e., 4:3 aspect images processed with *both* PhotoResizeH1080 and PhotoResizeW1080 were regenerated at 1080W x 808H. The PhotoResizeH1080 should produce an image that is 1440W x 1080H.
I would very much appreciate it if you could address these bugs.
Also, if you feel inclined to refine this application a little more once the bugs are fixed, here are two additional thoughts.
1. I have not tested dragging a folder which contains subfolders. You might want to consider an option that would specify whether subfolders are to be processed.
2. Also, while I believe that your intention is to provide a simple utility, which I applaud, ideally there could be an option to name a separate output folder for the processed images.
Again, thank you very much for your efforts.
|
2005-10-12Author: pennhaven
I had a thought that might explain why the bug fix and change do not appear to be working for me. Could it be that the file at the download link for version 1.1 is actually still version 1.0? I ran a file compare utility which says that both of the files I downloaded are identical.
|
2005-10-12Author: pennhaven
...and when I check the properties of the "new" file, which downloads as PhotoResize400-1.exe, I find that the version number is 1.0.0.1, which is identical to the version of the original PhotoResize400.exe that I downloaded yesterday.
|
2005-10-12Author: Vlasta
This is strange, I know for sure, there is an updated version on the server. Maybe the old version is still in your Internet Explorer cache. I guess, removing the file from cache explicitly, clearing the cache, or using for example Firefox for downloading should help.
|
2005-10-13Author: Vlasta
Regarding the new suggestions:
1. It would be easy to implement. Actually it is already there, but it is disabled. I thought the added value for a typical user is negligible and it makes the interface more complicated (do they know what "recursive" means ;-) ?).
BTW it is possible to drag and drop multiple folders at once. Maybe that would do it in your case. If not I can re-enable it, but I would like to keep it as an undocumented feature.
2. Simplicity vs flexibility is always the problem. There is no configuration right now, therefore the output folder would need to be hardcoded (for example "thumbnails" in the same directory where the app is). And there could be a problem when there are files with same names in different folders.
I will need to think about these features for a while before I implement them...
|
2005-10-13Author: pennhaven
Well I have been using Firefox for the downloads. Will try clearing it's cache.
|
2005-10-13Author: pennhaven
...Yes. Now I have the true 1.1 file. Initial test = works as advertised! Thanks.
Will experiment with subfolders, etc. and let you know if I notice anything else of interest. One folder at a time is probably fine as I will have to manually move the resized files to a separate folder anyway to best suit my purposes. I understand your reservations about further features. Thanks for what you have already provided. It is simple and effective.
|
2005-10-13Author: Vlasta
...I will eventually implement the new features, but I'd like to think about them for some time to minimize potential damage...
|
2005-11-07Author: jleslie48
jleslie48 (2005-11-07): what a product. so nice to see a KISS (keep it simple) program that is so usefull and pinpoint accurate to what it should be doing. I like the "rename the program name" parameter list, being an old command line programmer I know exactly where this comes from, although having command line parameters would be more flexible, (eg, "$photoresize -p400 -r -c -dc:\picturedirectory" but hardly really worth changing just for that. The only reason I bring it up is a request for one additional feature, rather than just a fixed target size, I'd like to see a percentage target size, like say 50%. The reason I bring this up is because my application was for conversion of jpgs that were scale drawings, all of which were scaled the same, but unfortunately the size of each image (widthxlength) were different. Using this program worked great to reduce all the images to a constant size, but as a result all the blueprints were no longer in scale with each other. I had to increase the borders of all the images to the same as the largest jpg, before I could run this program to get it all correct. Just a wish list item. The product is great.
I'd like to make a cash donation, is this possible??
I'm also a C programmer and have a wonderfull template for parameter passing from the command line that I use all the time, if you would like to see it, I can supply a sample.
Sincerely,
Jon, NYC
|
2005-11-07Author: Vlasta
Thanks for your feedback!
The application employs renaming instead of command line parameters to allow the "drag and drop" usage from Windows Explorer.
It is of course possible to also implement command line parameters that would override the "name parameters". Is there a use case that requires this feature?
Resizing to a size relative to the original sounds good, it will be added in the next version.
|
2005-11-08Author: jleslie48
"Is there a use case that requires this feature? " Actually no, so your right, forget it! I was just thinking that if you make a desktop icon for the application, its easier to adjust the parameters that way, but I wasn't thinking about the drag and drop functionality. I generally call up the program as a dos prompt line, so its hardly a significant extra step to rename the exe before I call up the program, although a "photoresizer[xxx] -help" or "photoresizer[xxx] /?" explaining the options, and procedure would be of some use given the unusual call-up procedure.
|
2005-11-16Author: mike
Is there any way to use this utility as a command-line utility?
I would be interested in using it in a database I created for my photos, to create thumbnails when the images are imported. If it was command line, I could call your program right from the code.
Thanks for making such a super-ease-to-use program!
|
2005-11-17Author: Vlasta
Yes, it could be used from command line, just put the full paths to images or folders on command line as parameters.
You are stuck with predefined resizing options though. Please let me know if you need to change them from command line too.
|
2005-11-29Author: <unknown>
is there a way to maintain/overwrite the same file name upon output?
|
2005-11-29Author: Vlasta
no, that is currently not possible. Is it critical for your scenario?
|
2005-12-02Author: <unknown>
The Density Resizer isn't what I would expect. The JPG file size grew considerably. I would expect the Number of Pixels to stay the same, but the density to change. This means that the dimensions of the picture will shrink if the denisty increases and grow when the density decreases.
This is used to help print high quality photos. A 2048x1536 72dpi photo is low res but very large (28" x 21". Resizing by Density would make the quality of the printout BETTER and the size SMALLER. So a resize to 300DPI should still be 2048x1536 in pixel dimensions, but 6x5 when printed. No Loss, no gain.
|
2005-12-05Author: Vlasta
I see what you mean, but I am not sure it would be appropriate for this tool. The tool decodes jpgs, resamples them, and finally encodes them again. What you want is to simply overwrite a number in the JPG-JFIF header - a significantly different functionality. I would have to throw away 90% of the code.
|
2006-01-11Author: <unknown>
first of all thank you for this very nice tool.
some Q:
* i would also like a option to keep orginal name..
Also allowing together with the -r flag to specify a destination would be nice (now when using the -r flag it saves the files in the orginal directory and i cannot get the r flag working together with the "shortcut dest folder trick"
together with the "keep the name" this would allow me to resize easely
data from dvd's to a destination folder and then upload.
now i have the copy the dvd, do the resize, delete the orginals, rename the new ones...
greetz,
polossatik (at the well known google mail extension)
|
2006-01-12Author: Vlasta
Thanks for feedback, since you are not first one to ask this feature, it will be included in the next version.
-r should work with the shortcut trick just fine. Just be sure, that the shortcut references the right app => that means create the shortcut after you add R to the filename, or change the referenced file afterwards.
|
2006-01-13Author: <unknown>
thankx Vlasta, but the -r seams not to work with the schrtcut for me (win2k system).. nevermind that's not a problem for me, wrote a batch file 
i got a error on a bunch of jpg b/w format files
one example can be found here http://g.divisionbyzero.be/temp/banken1.JPG
in case you want to check it out
greetz,
polossatik (at the well known google mail extension)
|
2006-01-14Author: Vlasta
B&W jpegs are not supported in the current version (trying to keep the size of the tool as small as possible), but I will consider it in the future update
|
2006-02-10Author: ajalan
I downloaded the 400.exe, but i found the same prog unde the name of 800exe.. What is the difference between these ? And wich shout i use ?
Geatings
|
2006-02-11Author: Vlasta
The name of the tool controls the size of the output image and possibly other options as described on the main page. You have probably downloaded the 800.exe from some other website, it is OK to use it, but be aware that it may not be the latest version.
|
2006-02-12Author: kenguy
Great tool! I think it has been asked above, but I would also like to be able to resize a file in a dir and keep the name. What I want to do is copy the files out to another folder, using a batch script, and then rename, so my link in the database will know the correct file.
Thanks for this awesome tool!
|
2006-03-23Author: aber
Brilliantly simple, simply brilliant! I have one wish, earlier mentioned above - to keep the original filename, in other words overwrite the original files. You mentioned above that it will be included in the next version. Can you say when that will be?
|
2006-03-24Author: Vlasta
Well, I can promise, there will be a new version before the end of April. This feature will be there as well as setting output quality. Maybe more.
|
2006-06-07Author: <unknown>
I am a little confused regarding the resizing and the DPI. I have an image that is 205dpi and of size 2050x1540. I'd like to resize to 410x308 and maintain as much quality as possible.
I use the -q100 setting, and the -w410 setting, but this results in an image with 41dpi. Adding -d96 creates an image of 96dpi, but that is 960x721. What am I missing?
|
2006-06-07Author: Vlasta
The main function of the application is to change the number of pixels, making the picture suitable for web publishing or archiving.
By default the tool is trying to preserve the physical dimensions of the picture by setting the dpi accordingly. What you see is just that.
Relatively many people request to be able to leave the pixels as they are and only set the dpi or vice versa. This will be one of the new options in the next version.
|
2006-07-28Author: <unknown>
Hi there,
I tried to use FotoResizer as explained, but when trying to open it or drag a file to the icon I got the message that it is not a correct win32-application. My OS is XP-home. Any suggestions?
|
2006-07-28Author: <unknown>
OK. My problem in previous message has been solved. Just downloaded the wrong version (from snapfiles.com, where it says that it suites 3 different win OS). Srry to have bothered you. It 's a real great tool! Thank you.
|
Back to forum Images
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Index
Software
Graphics
Articles
Discuss
More...
