Feedback on 4.4.3.3 beta

[Kirk Baker]

Hello everyone,

Please post your feedback on this topic.  Please let us know ASAP about anything that you had reported that is not fixed in this beta.

Thanks,

-Kirk

[nharnik]

In the Windows version
in the IPTC info box (not the stationary pad), hitting the "next photo" button requires the shortcut key of "ALT+]" and not "shift+ALT+]" as the popup says.

Also, noticed when shift key pressed, the OK button (in iptc info box) turns to EVAL. I can't recall seeing it before. what it is for?

The beta has not crashed on exit, even though I was torturing it.

Lastly, I was hoping this new version would have in the ingest dialog a check box to have the first ingest in the day auto start at one and then continue auto incrementing....


rgds, Nati

[Kirk Baker]

Nati,

In the Windows version
in the IPTC info box (not the stationary pad), hitting the "next photo" button requires the shortcut key of "ALT+]" and not "shift+ALT+]" as the popup says.

The shortcut tooltip is correct.  The functioning of the application was incorrect.  Thanks for telling me.  I have fixed the problem.

Also, noticed when shift key pressed, the OK button (in iptc info box) turns to EVAL. I can't recall seeing it before. what it is for?

It allows you to EVALuate any variables in the IPTC dialog to see what they would turn into without having to OK the dialog and blindly accept them.

The beta has not crashed on exit, even though I was torturing it.

Good to hear.  Everyone so far has told me that the crash on exit is now fixed.

Lastly, I was hoping this new version would have in the ingest dialog a check box to have the first ingest in the day auto start at one and then continue auto incrementing....

This is a bugfix release.  We're trying to avoid adding new features.  And I'm not sure I understand what you want to be reset: the folder suffix, or the sequence variable?

Thanks for the feedback.  It is much appreciated.

-Kirk

[Primoz]

Just one thing about this beta... or maybe I might be missing something obvious
Until now I could normaly delete selected photos (select photos and press Delete button). Today I tried and I couldn't do it. After bit of "researching" I found out that now I need Ctrl+Delete to delete photos. I know this is "safer" way, but it's slower. Is there any chance to get "normal" delete (Delete key only without Ctrl) back? Even if it's just option for which user have to agree in preferences. Something like option for "Never warn when deleting photos".
Otherwise bug with Canon 1dmk2 and actuations over 30.000 is fixed and now {actuations}  shows normal number.

[Kirk Baker]

Just one thing about this beta... or maybe I might be missing something obvious
Until now I could normaly delete selected photos (select photos and press Delete button). Today I tried and I couldn't do it. After bit of "researching" I found out that now I need Ctrl+Delete to delete photos. I know this is "safer" way, but it's slower. Is there any chance to get "normal" delete (Delete key only without Ctrl) back? Even if it's just option for which user have to agree in preferences. Something like option for "Never warn when deleting photos".

I have re-enabled that "feature" but now it will only work if the Contact Sheet has focus.  Previously there was an accelerator for the Del key that mapped to the Delete Photos...  This was bad because you could press Del and as long as you were not in a modal dialog it would delete photos.  This included while you were interacting with the Navigator and Favorites.

Otherwise bug with Canon 1dmk2 and actuations over 30.000 is fixed and now {actuations} shows normal number.

That's good to hear.  Thanks for the feedback!

-Kirk

[Primoz]

Ehh one more post. Sorry Kirk, but this is coming on the way when I'm working
I'm not 100% sure now but I think this kind of behaviour wasn't there before. I got used to went through photos, mark them, sort them by color and scroll down to those marked for delete to delete them. But now when I sort them by color, I automatically scroll with mouse scroller down to photos marked for delete. Now it doesn't really scroll but focus stays in Sory by box. So instead of scrolling through photos, I'm scrolling through options of Sort by box. I mean it's no big deal, since all I need to do is to click on contact sheet and then I'm normally scrolling through photos. But personally I still prefered previous way that focus automatically moved to contact sheet and it didn't stay in Sort by box. Is there chance to get this back too? 
PS: And in case if it matters... I'm on WinXP

[gregoire]

Kirk,

I'm still having the navigator refresh problem that was there in the b3 beta version and we mailed about. In the b4 beta it was solved, now it is back with the public beta.

Emile

[Kirk Baker]

Emile,

I'm still having the navigator refresh problem that was there in the b3 beta version and we mailed about. In the b4 beta it was solved, now it is back with the public beta.

There is no difference in the current beta and the last private beta I had you test.  Kathy is working on fixing the issues you reported.  I plan to issue another public beta early next week.

-Kirk

[Kirk Baker]

Ehh one more post. Sorry Kirk, but this is coming on the way when I'm working
I'm not 100% sure now but I think this kind of behaviour wasn't there before. I got used to went through photos, mark them, sort them by color and scroll down to those marked for delete to delete them. But now when I sort them by color, I automatically scroll with mouse scroller down to photos marked for delete. Now it doesn't really scroll but focus stays in Sory by box. So instead of scrolling through photos, I'm scrolling through options of Sort by box. I mean it's no big deal, since all I need to do is to click on contact sheet and then I'm normally scrolling through photos. But personally I still prefered previous way that focus automatically moved to contact sheet and it didn't stay in Sort by box. Is there chance to get this back too? 

The behavior that used to grab focus to the Contact Sheet all the time caused all sorts of issues.  The menus wouldn't stay down.  The Navigator new folder command wouldn't work correctly.  You couldn't use the keyboard with the Navigator.  It goes on and on.

While it was nice in some ways, the convenience that the focus grabbing behavior created is outweighed by all of the other usability issues that were lost.

-Kirk

[nharnik]

Kirk,

re:  check box to have the first ingest in the day auto start at one and then continue auto incrementing....

I now understand this beta version is a bugfix release, so possibly I should have put that comment in the other forum.
but just to clarify my earlier post: Currently the ingest dialog has check box with "Auto increment folder suffix".
I was hoping for an option that would make the folder suffix automatically count the number of ingests in a given day, i.e. on Monday it starts with 1, and increments all ingests within the same day. On Tuesday it resets itself to 1 again, and increments all the ingests on that day, and so on.

thanks, Nati

[Kirk Baker]

Nati,

re:  check box to have the first ingest in the day auto start at one and then continue auto incrementing....

I now understand this beta version is a bugfix release, so possibly I should have put that comment in the other forum.
but just to clarify my earlier post: Currently the ingest dialog has check box with "Auto increment folder suffix".
I was hoping for an option that would make the folder suffix automatically count the number of ingests in a given day, i.e. on Monday it starts with 1, and increments all ingests within the same day. On Tuesday it resets itself to 1 again, and increments all the ingests on that day, and so on.

OK, I understand what you are asking for.  I'll run the idea past the rest of the team...

-Kirk

[heavymeister]

Hello Kirk,

thanks a lot for the subsample chroma check box - works great.
I made a comparison PM to Nikon View software regarding output file size when batch re-sizing to 1024@medium quality:
Original file size: 3503kb@300dpi
Settings for PM: 1024, 150dpi with subsample chroma checked
Settings for NV: 1024, 300dpi (you can't choose dpi here)

Results:
the visual quality of PM looked better (although 150dpi)
the output file size of Nikon View was 50-90kb less than those from PM (although 300dpi)

I'm quite satisfied.
Although while comparing these images I wondered if there is a possibilty to see the dpi size of an image in the PM contact sheet?

Cheers,
HM

[Kirk Baker]

HM,

thanks a lot for the subsample chroma check box - works great.
I made a comparison PM to Nikon View software regarding output file size when batch re-sizing to 1024@medium quality:
Original file size: 3503kb@300dpi
Settings for PM: 1024, 150dpi with subsample chroma checked
Settings for NV: 1024, 300dpi (you can't choose dpi here)

Results:
the visual quality of PM looked better (although 150dpi)
the output file size of Nikon View was 50-90kb less than those from PM (although 300dpi)

I'm quite satisfied.
Although while comparing these images I wondered if there is a possibilty to see the dpi size of an image in the PM contact sheet?

In 4.5 you'll be able to see up to three extra lines of text.  You can put any {variables} in that you like, so use the {resolution} variable, and you'll be all set.

-Kirk

[dennis]

Results:
the visual quality of PM looked better (although 150dpi)
the output file size of Nikon View was 50-90kb less than those from PM (although 300dpi)

Remember that the "dpi" (actually pixels/inch or pixels/cm) has nothing to do with the quality - it is only used when printing to decide how big the image will print.  The number of pixels is all that matters as far as the true image size.  Also, you may be seeing the results of our scaling algorithm more than the JPEG quality.  Furthermore, the JPEG quality depends on the application, so a setting of 5 in PM doesn't mean the same as a setting of 5 in another application.  Plus, for example, in Photoshop CS2 at quality 7 and above there is no chrominance subsampling, whereas at quality 6 and lower there IS chrominance subsampling.  So in order to keep the file sizes decreasing as the quality goes down, you will notice that although a photo saved by Photoshop at quality 7 has better color detail, a photo saved at quality 6 will have less JPEG artifacting (such as "mosquito noise") than the quality 7 photo.  Rather than tie chrominance subsampling to quality, we decided to make it a separate parameter since some people actually like to use a very low quality setting yet NOT do chrominance subsampling.

We did add two new variables in 4.4.3.3: {resolution} (or {res} for short) and {printsize} (or {psiz} for short).  This will return something like "300 pixels/inch" and "6.8 x 4.6 inches".  We don't have a {dpi} variable (dpi is really a printing term related to dots of ink, not pixels in a photo).

--dennis