RIOT plugin for Irfan View

[Skippybox]

The main toolbar buttons should be large, because they are important.

Yes, but most programs do not use such big icons. Most are the same small size. Even IrfanView uses small icons by default, but then again, it also has optional skins which can be much larger.

I moved automatic preview in the View menu, as checkbox like Dual view or Fit only big. The reason is most people want to see instant results and the processing speed is good enough.

Sounds fine. Just wondered.

On/off for text labels in the main toolbar. I will not insert skin support. Too much overload. It is better to have a smart interface based on people suggestions.

Good, I don't mind a single design as long as it is smart. Didn't know skins would be difficult since IrfanView can do them.

I was thinking that we should put these modifications in a 0.3 branch, leave the 0.2 branch with the old interface and provide only bugfixes.
The interface changes are dramatic and deserve a next minor version.

What do you mean? I thought the purpose of 0.2 was the modifications. Aren't the new features linked to the new interface? I like the old interface, but obviously it needs some updating, just not too much. If you hold everything off to 0.3, what will 0.2 be - the unicode version? I guess I'm confused. Can you explain further?

[Sam_Zen]

I just doesn't seem to be able to do a save action with the Riot plugin anymore.
My DLL is v 0.1.11.0. Which version do I have to update to, to correct this problem ?

[Skippybox]

So what does it do? Can you explain?

Kind of defeats the purpose of RIOT if you can save.

[luciansabo]

Panning is disabled if the image is smaller than the view area.

I just doesn't seem to be able to do a save action with the Riot plugin anymore.

Check if you are using the unicode plugin from IV. The unicode plugin cannot work with 0.1.x To use unicode you need to upgrade to RIOT 0.2

[luciansabo]

When using 1:1 the cutoff is not an issue, because 1:1 means original size.
The original size may fit or not into the view area. If the image fits in the view area it cannot be moved. If the image is larger than the view area you are allowed to move it.

So a bug can be considered if a wrong size is displayed in Fit in window
or in actual view only when the whole image fits into the view area and cannot be moved.

As far as I tested no other display problems exist.
I think you have top and bottom cut off because you clicked on 1:1 and the image is slightly larger than the view area. Is this correct?

[Sam_Zen]

To use unicode you need to upgrade to RIOT 0.2

Thanks. That did it. I can save again.

[Skippybox]

Hello Lucian,

When using 1:1 the cutoff is not an issue, because 1:1 means original size.
The original size may fit or not into the view area. If the image fits in the view area it cannot be moved. If the image is larger than the view area you are allowed to move it.

Right, that's what I thought was normal operation. The reason I was confused is, the behavior of the program in connection with the display. This would be so, considering a bug of some sort is causing the confusion and unpredictability. If an image does not move, I would assume it is fitted. Therefore, if the image also is supposed to be 1:1, then logically it should be completely visible and not cut off if fitted. So, most likely I conclude that it is a cut off because the image does not move, but it also could be the opposite. If indeed the image is larger than the preview's display area when 1:1, then it should be movable since it is not fitted. In that case, there would be a problem with the move function. I am not able to easily tell. I would hope that you would know better, since you know the program's code and could determine which is the problem.

I think you have top and bottom cut off because you clicked on 1:1 and the image is slightly larger than the view area. Is this correct?

Yes, that sounds true. However, you would expect to be able to move the image if it is cut off, because it is not fitted. This I cannot do. That is a problem. This is not an issue under most circumstances. I only encounter it with BorderBox.png in single view, when the window is maximized (or fully sized), and I have clicked 1:1. The zoom is 100%, but the displayed image is 500x498 (WxH). How could it be 1:1 if it's not 500x500? Clearly it is not contained completely in the preview box, and therefore should be movable. As soon as the window gets a little smaller, the image is movable once again. Wouldn't you agree this is an error?



Likewise, I tried BorderBox.png resized in IV to 20% (100x100), and with just Fit in window only big images uncecked, not maximized in dual view it loads at 277%. If I zoom out once to 231%, then zoom in once to 278%, the image cannot be panned. If the image was fitted at 277%, how could it be fitted at percentages above 277%? Clearly it would not be and should also be able to move. Coincidence that there are two move issues so far? Wouldn't you agree this is an error?

Also note the apparent RIOT zoom bug, similar to the infamous IrfanView zoom bug. Zooming out and in does not bring you back to your starting point. Starting with 277% fitted, the zooms goes to 231, 278, 232, 279, 233, 280, 234, 281, 235, 282, then seems to level off. The error in zoom seems to get worse and worse until a certain point. Wouldn't you agree this is an error?

Zooming out and in pattern:
[ATTACH]1017[/ATTACH] (click thumbnail)

Going back to the original sized 500x500 BorderBox.png in a maximized window in single view...When you begin with the default Fit in window only big images checked, clicking Fit or 1:1 both give the same result. Zoom is 100%, but the image displays at 500x498 (WxH). I am just comparing for you. 1:1 works fine (except for the problem with moving mentioned earlier), but Fit should not be also 100%. Clearly, this is a problem, because it is not fitted if it is displaying at 500x498 (WxH), yet the zoom is 100%. It needs to be smaller. That brings us to the unchecking of Fit in window only big images. Upon doing so, clicking Fit displays the images at 99% or 497x497 (WxH), the correctly fitted size or thereabouts. This option (Fit in window only big images) should not change the display size of this image, as it has no bearing on it. Clearly, they need to match and you've forgotten to fix the other. When Fit in window only big images is checked it should be 99% like it is when it is unchecked, not 100%. Wouldn't you agree this is an error?

[ATTACH]1018[/ATTACH][ATTACH]1019[/ATTACH]

As you can hopefully see, issues persist for me. I don't know how you test, maybe you can fill me in. Maybe these are unique problems due to my display settings. Are you able to replicate my setup or at least locate the bugs in the source code?

[Skippybox]

Thanks. That did it. I can save again.

Why did you try to use unicode with 0.1.11 all of a sudden? Surely you used RIOT before Sam_Zen, knowing you couldn't.

[luciansabo]

However, you would expect to be able to move the image if it is cut off, because it is not fitted. This I cannot do

I think the problem is the following:

In fact the size of the view area need to be with at least 4px larger than the image, because of the 3D sunken effect.
When move action is requested the program tests for image_size <= view_area_size and it should test for image_size <= view_area_size - 4

To be completely sure I've put 5 pixels instead of 4.

And this is the explanation about the fit errors. A new version will contain a revised test for movable taking care of this issue.

And that's the explanation for parts of the zoom bug. I assumed that the view area width should be equal to the image width when fitted (same for height) , but this is not true because of the 3D effect.
Another issue with the zoom level changes are the floating point roundings, but these roundings should give you an estimate zoom level with an error not larger than 1%.

[Sam_Zen]

2 Skippybox
Well, when switching unicode on, I supposed I had the most recent version of RIOT, but it appeared not.

[Skippybox]

2 Lucian,

And yet you doubted me!

2 Sam_Zen,

No problem, we all make silly mistakes now and then.

Are you keeping up with the RIOT thread or the website? Many versions have come out since 0.1.11. Admittably, it is hard to keep up with their frequency, but then again, I'm in the middle of it all, so I have to stay informed.

[luciansabo]

I never doubted you are experiencing errors, but I wasn't able to replicate them until I fully understood them.
A new beta is on my website that takes in consideration that 3d view area margin and allows you to move almost fitted images.

About the zoom: I have modified the zoom rounding method (Banker’s rounding is applied now) and that will give a better approximation. When zooming back and forth at a certain point a small error will occur by converting floating point to integer - this will break zoom percentage values.

To be sure the zoom steps are the same the programs needs to use zoom presets. The current zoom style does not bother me, but if I receive suggestions to insert zoom presets I will implement them.

If you are willing to test again I will appreciate that, but It is entirely your decision if you still want to test it.
I noticed a small frustration about the errors, but you will find errors also in software developed by large corporations with hundreds of developers and beta testers.

[Skippybox]

Greetings!

I never doubted you are experiencing errors, but I wasn't able to replicate them until I fully understood them.
A new beta is on my website that takes in consideration that 3d view area margin and allows you to move almost fitted images.

Sorry if my explanations are unsatisfactory. It is sometimes better to be in front of the screen, than to write about it, and show you screenshots. I can move the images now, very good!

About the zoom: I have modified the zoom rounding method (Banker’s rounding is applied now) and that will give a better approximation. When zooming back and forth at a certain point a small error will occur by converting floating point to integer - this will break zoom percentage values.

Zoom works well so far! However, I tried zooming out to a minimum, and could not escape it. Once the minimum is reached, there is no zooming in allowed. Not sure what might happen at the maximum, so you should double-check that too.

We have definitely have come a long way with stability and accuracy. Still, at least one other problem remains. BorderBox.png in a maximized window, in single view with Fit in window only big images checked, clicking Fit or 1:1 both give the same result of 100% at 500x498 (WxH). 1:1 works fine, but they should not be equivalent. When Fit in window only big images is checked, it should be 99% 497x497 (WxH), like it is when it is unchecked, not 100%. It seems you haven't fixed this previously mentioned issue.

I noticed a small frustration about the errors, but you will find errors also in software developed by large corporations with hundreds of developers and beta testers.

Of course, I don't have time to test this stuff out like this. Why do you think I never signed up to be a beta tester? BTW, did anyone? I want RIOT to be sound, so I am willing to test somewhat, but I can't commit. Sure it's frustrating, I have to basically recheck over and over which is boring and tiresome. I also don't fully understand how these problems slip through your tests. I would much rather be out, taking photographs.

[Sam_Zen]

Are you keeping up with the RIOT thread or the website?

I'm visiting the IVF on a daily basis, so I think I do. But I sometimes was confused about the new beta-version, because it was not clear to me,
which package it was. While I have decided only to use the Lite version of the plugin.
I would like to, but as you say, I'm not in a position to declare myself beta-tester either, simply because of lack of time.
Means reading everything, but choosing priorities of interest, so f.e. I have to pass on the whole zoom issue, not only in this plugin, but also in IV itself.

[luciansabo]

I don't have any beta testing request. So, it may be true that people don't want to commit. I think I will create a distribution list for RIOT just for discussing about new releases, bugs, suggestions or general questions.
This way nobody is commiting to test, just stays informed about it and test whenever it feels like.