RIOT plugin for Irfan View

[luciansabo]

I created the distribution list. To subcribe send me a personal message with your email address. There is no automated subscribe/unsubcribe, but you will have the possibility to unsubscribe from the website.

[Skippybox]

I created the distribution list.

This might help since it is visible on your site. However, I wonder how many people use RIOT, or even visit the website for updates/info? I wouldn't be surprised if most users are just using the original RIOT plugin they get in the plugin pack. Worse yet, some don't even know about plugins! Anyway, even if they are using RIOT, few will notice bugs or be interested in helping out. It really is a depressing reality.

***

Have you taken a look at the remaining bugs: (1) minimum zoom stick, and (2) the Fit in window disparity?

We are getting close to 0.1.15!

[luciansabo]

You would be surprized how many people use RIOT !
I received many questions, suggestions or simply kind words. I received two donations also (one substantial donation came from Irfan itself). It was very nice to know my work is appreciated.

The number of visitors is constantly increasing since the first official release by 25-30% monthly. I have now around 2300 visits monthly and 100 downloads daily from my website. Many users download the program from other download sites. And the number of RIOT users is constantly increasing.

Do you want to subscribe to the mailing list?

[Skippybox]

No doubt your work is appreciated. People always love to give comments and plenty of feature requests.

The number of visitors is constantly increasing since the first official release by 25-30% monthly. I have now around 2300 visits monthly and 100 downloads daily from my website. Many users download the program from other download sites. And the number of RIOT users is constantly increasing.

Not bad, but you still somehow ended up with not a single beta-tester out of all those. Maybe you just didn't get the word out about it, well enough. Are those all unique visitors? Why shouldn't RIOT be successful? It is a good program.

Do you want to subscribe to the mailing list?

How do you know I haven't? Nobody signed up yet?

***

Few questions:

1. Why when you save for web, does the original image sometimes show the disk file size, instead of the memory size? If you open an image in IrfanView and resize it, the memory size changes, but in RIOT, the old disk size is shown which is quite meaningless.
   
2. How come saving an image in IrfanView without RIOT, will result in a smaller file size than using RIOT?

[luciansabo]

If you open an image in IrfanView and resize it, the memory size changes, but in RIOT, the old disk size is shown which is quite meaningless.

Well, I told Irfan to send me an empty string for filename if image changes, but he forgot about this or did not understood.
That's why if a filename exists I take the original size regardless of image modifications.
The alternative is to discard to disk size, but people don't usually understand what a DIB is, and why the memory size is much bigger than the disk size.

How come saving an image in IrfanView without RIOT, will result in a smaller file size than using RIOT

The quality parameter may give different results in various implementations. IrfanView and RIOT are using the same library (libjpeg from IJG) - that's the official lib that everyone uses.

[Skippybox]

The quality parameter may give different results in various implementations.

How so?

***

Have you looked at the last bugs yet?

[luciansabo]

I am a little tired now and I cannot concentrate on source code. I was at work all day... It's 6:30 PM here
I will look at this tomorrow maybe.

[Skippybox]

No problem, take as much time as you need. Go, relax Lucian.

[Sam_Zen]

I'm afraid I don't need the mailing list. As said, I'm following this topic on a daily basis, so I spot anything new.
Haven't got time to test anything specific, but I use RIOT often, so if I notice anything strange, I will report it of course.

[luciansabo]

I won't be here long, so the mailing list or the website will be the only contact with me.

[luciansabo]

new beta, hopefully final

v.0.1.15
- bugfix: fit in window problems (again) fixed !
- minimum and maximum zoom constraints
- eliminated the nasty effect on image moving
- improved zoom accuracy

Your zoom 100% related problem:
498/500 * 100 = 99.6, and rounds up to 100.
To avoid this I put a check just for 100 to display 100 only when divides exactly, else display 99

[Skippybox]

What's going on?! I thought you were tired! I told you to relax tonight.

Your zoom 100% related problem:
498/500 * 100 = 99.6, and rounds up to 100.
To avoid this I put a check just for 100 to display 100 only when divides exactly, else display 99

I haven't tried it yet, but I don't really understand. The image was 99% (497x497) when Fit to window only big images is unchecked. Why would it become 100% when checked? Don't forget the borders were only 9px wide top/bottom and 10px wide left/right. That indicates the image was likely 100%, but cut off in Fit mode. So using 498 would be incorrect, it should use 497/500*100=99.4≈99%. It sounds like the problem is a bit deeper, more fundamental. I also am able to move this 100% image, which is unusual if it is supposed to be fitted (unless you made that possible).

[Skippybox]

new beta, hopefully final

Don't we wish.

- minimum and maximum zoom constraints
- improved zoom accuracy

Very good, zoom doesn't hold anymore, but it loses accuracy if you reach the minimum. Not critical, but I thought I'd let you know in case you want to change it. After reaching the minimum, the zoom levels are different when zooming in again, thus you lose your starting point.

Your zoom 100% related problem:
To avoid this I put a check just for 100 to display 100 only when divides exactly, else display 99

Just as I thought, there was no change. My display is still 100% and the dimensions are 500x498 (WxH) with 10px left/right borders and 9px top/bottom borders (obvious mismatch in dimensions). So you need to determine why the image is not fitting, but is when Fit in window only big images is disabled.

Good night, Lucian...

[luciansabo]

I think I got it now. My earlier modification were good also, because we should not display 100% unless it is the original size, not a result of some rounding.

I forgot to put that "- 4 pixels" when using "fit in window only big"

http://luci.criosweb.ro/riot/beta/Riot.dll

After reaching the minimum, the zoom levels are different when zooming in again

I was aware of this but I cannot do anything because repeated roundings generate that deviation. Converting from float to integer loses some important decimals. When multiplied again with the same ratio there is no guarantee we will have the same size.

As I told you the only method to have the same zoom levels is to use zoom presets, but I personally don't need an exact zoom level, I just need to zoom-in/out with 20% in one step.

[Skippybox]

Hello Lucian,

After a week of testing and six betas, culminating a month's worth of development time, we have reached a wonderful 0.1.15!

All seems to work very well now. Yeah!!

I sure hope all these modifications will work for all displays and not just mine.

My earlier modification were good also, because we should not display 100% unless it is the original size, not a result of some rounding.

Yes, this is good. Now you don't have to press 1:1 to know it is, just like I asked about.

***

Feature Requests:

1. Is it possible to allow resizing without using a resample method, like in IV?
2. Could you add a revert/reopen command to restore the original image after changes?

***

The quality parameter may give different results in various implementations. IrfanView and RIOT are using the same library (libjpeg from IJG) - that's the official lib that everyone uses.

So, how might a difference arise between IrfanView and RIOT? You mention JPG. Would PNG and GIF be universal as well?

***

I won't be here long, so the mailing list or the website will be the only contact with me.

Are you leaving?