(09-16-2020, 07:49 AM)swizzle Wrote: You don’t really want a super high image quality setting because it makes files much larger for diminishing returns, your thumbs could wind up larger than the original images.
Assuming full screen the maximum thumbnail image size for a 5120x2880 screen would be ~671px with a 6/2 thumbnail layout (less for more thumbs shown). Your iMac Pro runs in hidpi mode but that makes it logically appear to be 2560x1440 with the end result of using the extra pixels to improve fidelity rather than display more data. Images are an exception so you still need thumbs at the same ~671px for the image to be sharp. As a comparison the 6k Pro Display XDR needs about 800px at 6/2, my MBP needs ~400px. The problem with big images (and why we don’t just use the original cover art scaled down) is that it uses a lot of memory and your browser needs to load them so it’s slower. Your ideal thumb size is the same size as the maximum image size at an iq value high enough to produce good results but low enough to produce small files. Another point of comparison - Photoshop’s “high” jpeg image quality default is 60. It might be helpful to re-size a few images yourself with Preview and tweak the quality slider to see how it affects the results so you can see at what point there’s a trade off between size and quality you’d be willing to make.
Yes, I really want a super high quality setting. I have the CPU, RAM, RAID storage, and gigabit networking to support it comfortably. I'm quickly moving all of my music to lossless, so the penalty in storage for a bigger picture isn't a big deal.
The reason for my request of 600, 800, and 1000 was future-proofing. There's no sense in limiting the image size options such that they have to be revisited every few years as we see increases in R-Pi performance, RAM, screen sizes, and resolutions. Looking at a 6-wide album cover layout on my full-screen browser, even though the album art is displayed larger next to the tracklist, the larger cover art is clearly sharper than corresponding thumbnails. That just shouldn't be; if anything, the smaller image should look sharper, but certainly not less sharp.
"The problem with big images (and why we don’t just use the original cover art scaled down) is that it uses a lot of memory and your browser needs to load them so it’s slower. "
Slower than the ~0.7 seconds it takes now to load up my library of album art at 400px on moOde using gigabit ethernet? Oh no!
What a person considers to be acceptable is going to be based on their own priorities, CPU(s), RAM, storage space, network performance, music library size, and sense of what is "good enough." I would not presume to limit everyone else to only the subset of choices that would satisfy me at this moment in time.
Your suggestion for determining optimal settings is great. Give users the ability to do that within moOde and many will That's better than having them spend the time outside of moOde only to find that their Raspberry Pi's CPU, RAM, storage, or network connectivity imposes a bottleneck they hadn't planned on. If you're happy with the default, no harm in having settings that you're not ready to explore. It's just like a video game. Some just play the games at the default settings. Others people only care about framerate; and others are willing to settle for a lower framerate for better graphics. That's why you can do so much tuning in most modern games.
