Absolute new canvas size

[boarder's paradise]

Nobody challenged the importance of your opinion. However one should understand what he or she votes on and your comment about "permanent proportional adjustment and necessary rounding" suggest that this isn't the case.

Voting no without understanding and without asking for explanation speaks books about the hegemonic and reactionary reluctance to new IV features among forum elders and regulars, especially against the backdrop of this very revealing attitude:

Whenever you see a comment like "feature can't be realized" just after a screenshot of a program depicting the implementation of precisely this very feature, one naturally has to wonder big time about the intentions of the comment's author.

... later explicitely confirmed by a quote which goes a long way showing that if you guys had it your way, IrfanView would be a naked, featureless image viewer like Windows XP's "Image and Fax Viewer":

I think the intention is wrong!
IrfanView mainly is an image viewer and not a canvas and/or picture frame editor!

... which, by the way, makes your stance completely absurd, because you argue against canvas enlarging/cropping on the grounds that "IV is not a canvas and/or picture frame editor" (whatever that is), blatantly not realizing at all that the very feature you don't want to see implemented ....
... IS already implemented.

Open the batch conversion dialogue, click on advanced and you will see a checkbox labeled "CROP" and another one labeled "canvas size".

GEE, IT IS ALREADY THERE.




Oh, I'm not sure, but didn't you say

I think such feature request can't be realized!

Why was that again ?!?


Everything - and really everything - PenaPP was doing was suggesting to merge both features, thus reducing GUI complexity while keeping the same functionality, plus - while we are at it - adding a bonus feature in the form of a checkbox asking if you are using absolute or relative values (i.e. if you want to crop/enlarge TO 400 px or BY 400 px).

[boarder's paradise]

It has never been proven if Irfan even reads this forum.

... which begs the question of the feature suggestion forum's sense and usefulness.

But given the above, maybe it's better this way.
After all, why should Irfan come here only to read that features already implemented in Photoshop and IrfanView are impossible to implement in IrfanView, and that new features should generally not be implemented ?
See.

[PenaPP]

boarder's paradise: Thank you - you're the only one, who understand me

[boarder's paradise]

trust me PenaPP, I've learned it the ward way, too.

It's really a pity, because most ideas for improvement and feature suggestions are dead on arrival due to the prevailing "no-features-for-IV" attitude among the forum elite and mods here (hint: see nay voters) - even when their line of arguments gets as self-contradictory and ridiculous as above - which does a great disservice

• to the excellent IrfanView software (because intelligent ideas are wasted)
  
  as well as
  
  
• to the forum here (because it is obviously not used as a platform for improving IrfanView and because new users like you are quickly turned off and lose interest when they offer their well thought-out and well formulated ideas for improvement).

Latest case in point:
Mij, who voted NO on your feature suggestion (which really didn't come as a great surprise) also voted
"NO, I would feel so disturbed by this button that I want other users to renounce it." (sic!)
on this RFE.

C'mon, I mean ... seriously ?!?

One might not need it.
One might not use it.
But allegedly feeling disturbed by a button (they just don't need to use) to such extent that they deny other users this improvement although nobody would have any disadvantages and although it is ALREADY THERE for jpg files (!) is simply closed-minded.

--> That's the mindset we are dealing with here.


Better send your ideas --> directly to Irfan. I do this from time to time and always got favorable replies. He has implemented 2 RFEs of mine and others might follow one day if there's enough time.

[PenaPP]

boarder's paradise: E-mail has been sent, so I'll keep you informed about the result

[PenaPP]

Nice, reply is here...

Hi,

Hehe, I already added some new features for the next version ;-)

You can test the new Canvas dialog:

http://www.irfanview.info/test/iview_test.zip

Unzip it over your normal IrfanView EXE and plugins and use as always.
---

The Canvas dialog has more features now, I hope you like it :-)
---

That's exactly what I wanted

[boarder's paradise]

Nice, reply is here...

See... fast and a "tidbit" more helpful.


Beforehand:





Now:
(enjoy and bon appetit Mr.-can't-be-realized-because-of-a-permanent-proportional-adjustment-and-necessary-rounding-Frank & Co naysayers)


-



Thank you for staying the course PenaPP and for not letting yourself be discouraged despite considerable headwind here.
Thank you for trying to improve IrfanView.

I hope you will stay here and that you will continue to share your ideas - which are now officially proven to be worthy of implementation - with us here on the forum. Cheers.

[PenaPP]

boarder's paradise: Thank you for guiding me the right way

[boarder's paradise]

You are very welcome. But don't mention it, it was the least I could do.
Hope to see you around here. Cheers.

[derniwi]

But be carefull with the test version of IrfanView, sometimes there are big bugs in it because Irfan is changing a lot of parts of his tool. It is not recommended for productive use, just for a proof or lookout.

[Mij]

Latest case in point:
Mij, who voted NO on your feature suggestion (which really didn't come as a great surprise) also voted
"NO, I would feel so disturbed by this button that I want other users to renounce it." (sic!)

Consider it as a protest against those who try to rig the results of a poll by offering a single No option worded in such a way that they do do think anyone would be able to vote that way. Sorry, Boarder's, but I will always vote against anyone who tries to pull that stunt.
I do have it on my list to write a response to that Feature request but I do make a point of trying to give priority to those who are asking for Support.

I will first though write a response to the Feature request in this thread. Although I have voted "Probably no" which is an honest opinion, I do think that it is a reasonable request for a more advanced feature. I am conscious though that advanced features invariably make life more confusing for those who just want to use the basic ones, so I will argue a case for implementing it in a different way that does not further complicate the already confusing Add canvas dialog.

[PenaPP]

Mij: Have you seen the screenshot? It doesn't complicate the dialog - it just logically extends its functionality.
And as I see you just want to use built-in Windows image viewer because it is easy, uncomplicated and has no advanced features, which could confuse you, right?

[Mij]

OK. The Photoshop dialog is intended for use by those familiar with the terminology of that program and will not automatically be familiar to users of Irfanview. So let us first consider what is familiar and start with a critique of the existing Add canvas dialog box.

The dimensions used in Add canvas are relative to the edges of the original image and are always positive in an outward direction, away from the image.
A request was made that canvas might also be added inwards from the edge, over the image, and Irfan responded by allowing negative dimensions to be entered to this to include that feature
Then a further request was made that it should be possible to use dimensions in this way, relative to the edges, for cropping a specified amount from the edges of an image and Irfan responded to that by adding a check box that has the label " If negative values used: add canvas to inside".

When the box is ticked the canvas is indeed added inside the original. There is no clue in the dialog box though to inform that when the box is not ticked the edges of the original will instead be cropped should the dimensions be negative. It is what we have now got and those who have discovered how it works, probably do find it a useful alternative way of cropping. I would not now propose that it should be moved back to the crop dialog box because that would then add confusion there by trying to support two different ways of dimensioning how the cropping takes place. All I would propose is that the checkbox be renamed and reversed in its action. It is the Add canvas dialog after all and I would expect negative dimensions to cause canvas to be added to the inside, so that should be the unchecked feature. The label, I think, should read "Crop if inside the original" and should be checked if that special feature is wanted.

So where does the feature requested by this thread fit? To my mind it now should logically go in the Crop dialog as a special feature. In the crop dialog x,y dimensions are relative to the corner(s) and are always positive inwards towards the centre of the image. This is true in the crop dialog of the Batch mode also which allows x,y to be relative to any of the 4 corners, but always positive inwards. So I would propose the same two new features in the crop dialog as in Add canvas. Firstly negative values of x and y be allowed so that the origin can be outside the original image and second that a checkbox be added labelled "Add canvas if outside the original".

It should be noted that at present if the width and height are specified to extend outside the image then the area outside is ignored and the far edges are left unchanged where it applies. That is quite a useful feature in Batch mode and I would propose that it remains unchanged when the box is unchecked.

With the box checked canvas would be added to the far edges. The most useful case is for negative x,y to be specified and the box checked which allows canvas to be added all around the image to satisfy what is requested in this thread. For single images I think this should suffice since it is not difficult to work out where to position the top left corner to place the canvas in any required position. For batch mode though I would propose that a fifth option "Center" be added to the start positions Left top, Left bottom, Right top and Right bottom. This allows x,y of zero to define a centered rectangle of "absolute" width and height but also permits asymmetric positioning if desired by changing x and y, probably using the same direction sense as for top left.

Sorry that is rather long but I have tried to explain in some detail what I am suggesting so that you can determine if it gives you what you want.

Ps: I don't say I really like this solution but I think it is more sensible to build on the existing way of doing things rather than introducing new somewhat alien concepts to the program.

[Mij]

Sorry, PenaPP. I did not see your post before I posted that long one above. This one really should go first to explain where I was going.

The point is it is not me, or any of the other users you have to convince, but Irfan Skiljan who writes the program. The precedent is that when asked for a feature for "relative" settings for cropping as an alternative to the "absolute" setting method used in the crop dialog, he did not produce an extended menu like Boarder's incorporating the two methods. Instead he just added an extra checkbox in the Add canvas dialog (where relative setting is already used). It then allows cropping to be performed as a kind of negative Add canvas. Main trouble is that since the dialog does not even mention Crop, who is ever going to know it is there?

So I am pretty sure that if he decided to implement what you are asking for, i.e. "absolute" settings for Add canvas, then he would do the same thing and add a checkbox to the crop dialog to allow you to do it as a kind of negative Crop.

[PenaPP]

Mij: I think I understand you finally
And the thread problem is actually solved, so I'm closing this - thanks to everyone and especially to boarder's paradise.