Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: gif, jpg, png, txt, tpl, lng, ini, pvd, psf, ini, cfg, csv, zip, xml, pas, 7z
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 1024KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
How many words are in this question?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: chase
« on: May 16, 2012, 07:08:56 pm »

Sorry for the confusion with my use of terms - I'm be more careful using terms.

When PVD first starts up - if you break a link to an image in any template - whether you are using it or not - you'll see it will warn you that it can't load it due to the break in the preview image link.

To me this was telling me - PVD is loading all templates on start up. Including images.
This may not be true - but the instance i have with all the template images optimized definitly loaded faster than the one that didn't have them optimized.

All i did was batch optimize them in PS. so it was easy for me.

But as you are stating above - You are a collector of the Poster art etc etc. In that case I can see why you wouldn't want your images optimized or re-sized etc etc.

I'm using PVD more as a tool...
- Now I realize you guys are collectors and image quality is more important for your use than mine
and may cringe at the thought but yes I optimized all my Posters as well. And resized them.
and don't have the need for screenshots for my particular use.

Anyhow - I thought i was doing a good thing for all - no biggy. I do see your reasoning. 8)

but I'm still saying mine runs faster overall    ;) heh heh 
Posted by: rick.ca
« on: May 15, 2012, 09:26:56 pm »

I wish nostra would comment on your conjectures, but he seems to have the good sense to stay out of such discussions.

Quote
PVD is basically by all rights very similiar to a website - it uses css and xml as for it's templates - I think we can agree on this.

The fact a skin is defined by XML and an export template may include CSS doesn't make it similar to a website anymore than anything displayed on a computer screen is similar to website because they're both displayed on a computer screen.

Quote
It is well known the smaller you can make the weight of a page - the faster it will load. - we can agree on this as well I'm sure.

Can we agree an imperceptible load time makes no difference? Do you use low-res posters too, because each movie 'page' has to load one? [Edit: OMG, it seems you do!]

Quote
I saved you over 100k - which will load faster at full rez - the 119k of course.

Yes, I could have 'optimized' the preview, but why bother? It's just a preview. It's already a compressed jpeg. It's not being transmitted over the internet. And...

Quote
Now PVD loads from what I've seen, at start-up all templates.

...if by 'templates' you mean previews, it doesn't.

Quote
So lets say you have 1000 images for a 1000 movies - each weigh say 200k each. That comes to... what a mear 100 megs of photos - then add your database itself. that's a pretty heavy database.

Now you're talking about posters and other images. Yes, I have more than 1,000 movies, many of which are 'heavier' than that—my database is 1.6 Gb, and most of that is obviously images, none optimized in the way you're advocating. That's because I want to be able to view them in the viewer at as large as my monitor will allow. If I have time, I do optimize them at that resolution, but it doesn't matter much if I fail to do so. To me, spending any time looking for and choosing the best images for a movie is a waste if you're going to then save them at a low resolution (e.g., a poster optimized for the size at which it's displayed in the skin).

If my database were being accessed over the Internet, I'd likely do it differently. If I were offering my database to others by download, I'd tell them it's big, but worth the download if they like good art.

Again, it makes no perceptible difference to how quickly PVD loads or displays a record.

Quote
Do you really go through your data base and look at all the preview images? Or more honestly do your preview images simple serve as a reminder of what the movie or song or album was?

You apparent use of the word 'preview' to mean both the preview of a skin or template and a poster or other art is very confusing. A poster is not a preview, it's a poster. And no, I don't use them as thumbnails to remind me of what the movie is. I collect posters, just like I collect other movie meta data—that's what the program is for. I don't want to butcher a good poster, just like I don't want to butcher a comprehensive review because it's 'too heavy.' Since previews have no impact whatsoever on the performance of the database, I'd much rather (as explained in my last post) have images that convey as clearly as possible the nature of the skin or template. Many of those things I rarely use, so a good preview will very likely save me from loading or using something only to then discover it's not what I want.

Quote
Go to a JPG and optimize it - add a tad of sharpening or clarity and you drop 50% or better off a JPG. Let alone what you save off a PNG.

Is there some reason you think I don't do this?

Quote
image your 1.75 Terri database only weighing in at 750 megs or less once optimized.

That's not difficult. I'd be sacrificing a very significant and valued degree of quality in images for a very small improvement in performance. Why would searches be faster? Do you understand how a database works?

Quote
just my two cents but - bet mine runs faster now it's optimized even with a mear 166 titles. Actually - I know it does.

I'm glad you're happy and sorry to be argumentative, but I don't think this sort of analysis helps others understand the program better and use it to their advantage. I would agree there is value to understanding digital images in general and what is meant by things like 'optimization' (which, BTW, you didn't explain). But that doesn't have much to do with PVD. It uses the Firebird database, which is very forgiving of things like image size. If someone had reason to collect very high resolution images (i.e., way beyond the needs for displaying on a monitor), there would be no reason for them not save them in their database—if that's what works for them (e.g., for keeping them organized and secure).
Posted by: goddert
« on: May 15, 2012, 09:09:03 pm »

PVD uses exactly one XML file (no css) at the start. The preview of a skin is shown only in the configuration dialog and only when you choose a skin. It's not loaded to visualize a movie. So it's a saving of load time for exactly one image during the configuration of a skin. How often do you change your skin?

On the other hand to visualise a movie with its preview it loads exactly always only one image (the movie poster) from its database (whether it's stored in the database or as external file) Therefore, you're right, if you minimize this image you'll have saved maybe 200kb load time for this one image at the cost of a, in my eyes, worse visualisation. The difference in load time on today systems is very small if not to neglect. To repeat it: PVD loads only the one image which it needs to show the current movie. This is the concept of a database. At no point PVD loads all images on start up or during the visualization of movies.

So your calculations are wrong.

And believe us, Rick is the last one who has to learn something about PVD.
Posted by: chase
« on: May 15, 2012, 07:36:26 pm »

Okay I'll bite... and learn yah something.

PVD is basically by all rights very similiar to a website - it uses css and xml as for it's templates - I think we can agree on this.

It is well known the smaller you can make the weight of a page - the faster it will load. - we can agree on this as well I'm sure.

In the above example you show two images - okay lets take the last one - the heaviest one - the one you like and optimize it.

say at 65% and with an online optimizer as well.

With PS I can optimize it even better with better results and I'mm sure there are some good online sources to do the same.

Attached is the second image - opitmized at 65% as mentioned.

It came in at 119k versus your 200+k original

I saved you over 100k - which will load faster at full rez - the 119k of course.

Now PVD loads from what I've seen, at start-up all templates.

If I lighten the load of all the templates by say - 3 4 5 megs. Saving PVD the load time of those megs...
 it will effectively load faster.

let me give another example - one I just did last night.

I had 166 files loaded with posters in a PVD database.

as it was - with no optimization - it weighed in at in total - 14megs
After optimization - with all the same size images - and pretty damn near the same clarity it weighs in at less than three megs.

So lets say you have 1000 images for a 1000 movies - each weigh say 200k each.
That comes to... what a mear 100 megs of photos - then add your database itself. that's a pretty heavy database.
So now you want to share it - so lets say with data base your at 120megs
Zip it up - say 4 files at 30 megs each or 2 at 60 - what have you. Not unreasonable this day an age.

But now look at my same 1000 movie database - optimized to have all images at 10k
and I'll be generous and say my database is the same 20megs

- My total is a mear 30megs of data including all the images. And i gave up nothing except a small amount of quality.

Most people will look at a preview - skim it. then open the file or aply it - they want to see what it looks like with their data in place.

Do you really go through your data base and look at all the preview images? Or more honestly do your preview images simple serve as a reminder of what the movie or song or album was? And then either play or go - "oh yeah, I remember what that song or movie was" and move on or play it.

Same with the preview of the template. At least for me - I skim through the previews and select the one I want to try.

Even if - you wanted full screen previews - there is no reason for the file sizes.
PNG for a preview image - the weight per image is way to big.

Go to a JPG and optimize it - add a tad of sharpening or clarity and you drop 50% or better off a JPG. Let alone what you save off a PNG.

You currently have templates with not a full screen preview that weigh in at 1meg. A full meg for a preview image... totally un-nessasary.

If you drop the weight of the contents of the app - it will run faster I gaurantee it.

image your 1.75 Terri database only weighing in at 750 megs or less once optimized.
Bet searches would be faster
- load times cut.
Faster all round.

just my two cents but - bet mine runs faster now it's optimized even with a mear 166 titles. Actually
- I know it does.  ;D

[attachment deleted by admin]
Posted by: rick.ca
« on: May 15, 2012, 03:47:43 am »

Quote
I took a moment to optimize the preview images for some of the skins for PVD. I really didn't see the sense in having 200k - 500k images for a preview image. And it may be my imagination, but PVD seems to load a little faster since doing so.

Sorry, I don't see the point in this. If anything, the resolution of the images provided it too small. If a preview is shown, there's no reason why it should be a fuzzy one. And while the dimensions are probably appropriate for the resolution, the dialog does resize them to fit. If the user wants to make the dialog full-screen to get a good look at a preview, there's no reason why they should not be shown a suitable image. The best preview to use is the largest screenshot you can get (assuming an aspect similar to that of the dialog—most will be). That will work with the dialog at any size. The size has no impact on how long it takes the program to load or display the preview.

To illustrate, which is the most effective preview?... ;)

[attachment deleted by admin]
Posted by: chase
« on: May 14, 2012, 11:18:05 pm »

And a People skin I optimized

[attachment deleted by admin]
Posted by: chase
« on: May 14, 2012, 11:16:50 pm »

Here's anther optimized Movie Skin

[attachment deleted by admin]
Posted by: chase
« on: May 14, 2012, 11:15:59 pm »

I took a moment to optimize the preview images for some of the skins for PVD. I really didn't see the sense in having 200k - 500k images for a preview image. And it may be my imagination, but PVD seems to load a little faster since doing so.

I also fixed a preview image link in one of them - ZSimpleWhite I think was the one.

Anyway... just overwrite your existing skins if you have the same skin. Other wise just load them as you would any other skin

I've uploaded/attached them below. These are the Movie Skins I've done so far...

[attachment deleted by admin]