Re: thumbs.el and transparency

[Mathias Dahl]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

> 2006/2/6, Mathias Dahl <address@hidden>:
>> For directories with a large amount of images, this simply does not
>> work, I just tried.
>
> Why not?  If it's the speed of conversion, that could be handled
> nicely by a system such as David Kastrup described (which he uses for
> his latex rendering package) earlier (and something like that is
> really necessary for large directories, regardless of how you display
> the thumbnails).

Okay okay, sorry for not being precise enough, it does not work as it
is *now*, for me. I'd be happy to add some more advanced way of
handling this, later.

> I think both "dired style" and "photo album" style could be useful in
> difference circumstances, depending on what I want to do with the
> pics:  if I'm re-arranging the files, deleting etc., dired would be
> useful; if I just want to look at pictures, a photo-album style layout
> [with slightly larger thumbnails] would be useful...

I agree completely. I use tumme for different purposes. Sometimes just
to browse and find an image, sometime to organize (tag, delete etc).

>> Personally, I do not like the larger size of the thumbnail files used
>> by the Thumbnail Managing Standard although I like standards.
>
> It seems like it should be user-configurable, and configurable
> separately for the different cases (you're right the, in the dired
> case, they should be a bit smaller).

I was referring to the file size. I don't remember how big a
difference there was between a PNG and JPG of the same dimensions but
at least when I created thumbnails for my 3000+ images I found the
difference in file size to be too much.

Now I'd better learn how to check in stuff to CVS...