(09-17-2020, 12:55 PM)Tim Curtis Wrote: Right, the 800's will have more pixels than the 400's and should appear better looking to the eye depending on the display resolution. What @swizzle is talking about is that moOde's album grid layout impose a max image size so even for the highest res display, thumbs greater than 800px would be in the "diminishing returns" space.
Ah, of course since the routine knows the source image width and height it would be trivial to check that and only downsample the image if target W * H < source W * H. Good idea :-)
What I might try is having separate options for resolution and quality. Something like below. There's plenty of time b4 7 ships to get this feature nailed down.
Resolution [ ]
Auto
Bypass
400
600
800
Quality [ ]
60
70
80
90
The max image size is the space allocated on the screen to display the image, if you have a 2000x2000 image it’s not going to look any better than 700x700 if 700x700 is all the space there is. There may be some slight super sampling benefit from scaling down wrt smoothness but I think sharpness is the desire here. There will always be some degree of scaling because the image won’t ever be exactly the size of the space allocated for it, downscaling is obviously better than upscaling.
The bypass I meant was to have an option to not use a thumbnail image at all and to display the album cover art instead. I don’t see any point to thumbnails > 800px and 600px is probably more reasonable. With a bypass and a system that’s fast enough you can get perfect results without any additional lossy compression.
The size of the image grows rapidly after about q60, a 800x800 image at q90 can be 400-500k which is larger than most publicly available (i.e. not press kit) images. We don’t want people thinking they want maximum quality and choose the highest possible settings and end up with a slower system than if we’d just used the orginal cover art. A png thumb would be > 1MB for 800x800 and again wouldn’t offer any benefit over the original cover art.
...
I wrote a routine to calculate the HxW of the thumbnail images and add them to the image element instead of using css at one point as it was supposed to help native lazy load performance according to a comment on the Chrome bug tracker for the feature but I didn’t notice any real improvement and it bloated up the list a bit, it might help with the jitteriness of scrolling up.
