Image Viewer

[ggilbert1 0]

I just noticed this behavior with the Image Viewer, and wondering if this is a bug or a feature?

Census image downloaded from Ancestry.com as a .jpg file size 808Kb.

Attach as an external exhibit to source.

View exhibit using integrated image viewer.

Check file size in folder – file is now 2,401Kb

 

If this is a feature is there a way to turn it off?

If this is a bug it needs to be fixed.

 

My work around is to set the image files as Read Only.

Which may result in TMG complaining as follows:

OLE Idispatch exception code 0 from ltocx13n: LEAD Error: Not able to open file.. 0 IMAGEVIEWER.MOK

 

[ABORT] [RETRY] [iGNORE]

 

When attempting to close the image viewer. Ignore permits viewer to close.

[Jim Byram 0]

Now that's really strange. I can replicate it and have reported the issue. Bottom line... if you are viewing the image only, the original file should not be touched. This is a bug.

[ggilbert1 0]

Thanks

FYI I did a little more testing and it looks like .png files get a little boost in file size too 664Kb before viewing 845Kb after viewing .gif does not appear to be effected. Also .tiff files from HeritageQuest Online do not appear to be effected.

Edited July 25, 2006 by ggilbert1

[RGC 0]

Now that's really strange. I can replicate it and have reported the issue.

 

Jim, having experimented it looks like jpg files are being resaved by TMG with a compression factor of 100 - that is, no compression. Many people - such as me - normally use about 75. I guess TMG doesn't - or can't - know what the original compression factor was, so it takes the safe option and uses 100. TMG must resave the image if there is editing done; perhaps if no editing is done the resave could be avoided - or the compression factor could be an option (either a program default and/or an option on the exit of the image view). I imagine few users would like to have a choice on an individual image basis, so a default value would probably satisfy most.

 

Of course if the original compression factor can be "seen" by the TMG image viewer, it should be used when saving.

 

Dick

[John Moran 0]

Ah so. Reminds me of a long ago experimention with another widely distributed genealogy program. What was the name? I forget now. Similar Lead Tools "third party" functionality. No matter what format the image files were in upon import, they seemed to be opened as a bitmap and then resaved.

 

So it's better to start with original images in bitmap or a "lossless" compression file format for best quality internal file. But when printed to paper, it doesn't seem to matter.

[ggilbert1 0]

IMHO the Image Viewer should simply display the image, even if I manipulate it. Say I rotate a census image to read the street, the rotation becomes permanent when I close the view

I don't want TMG 'editing' my images, at least not without my permission.

[GenerationGoneBy 0]

Glenn,

I agree that it should just display the image, but if you change the image, then I would prefer those changes to stay. I often scan in an image in my photoediting software, but rotate it in TMG, and I'd have to go back and correct those if TMG didn't save those changes.

[Jim Byram 0]

Of course if the original compression factor can be "seen" by the TMG image viewer, it should be used when saving.

I've never used a graphics program that could determine the current compression value and use that when resaving a JPG. However...

 

If a JPG is saved compressed, each time that the image is saved, 2-3% of the image detail is lost. If the image is edited in TMG and the image is saved at 100% (with no compression), no image detail is lost. That would appear to be the conservative choice since JPG images should never be edited if at all possible. So... I don't have an issue with saving the JPG at 100% if it is edited.

[MMj 0]

I'm a real newcomer here, and I have a heck of a lot to learn, but I would like to say that I'm a little bit surprised that people would even want to edit images from within TMG. Perhaps that's because I have just spent days trying to figure out the best and clearest way to capture images and store them in a safe location where they will never inadvertently be changed, especially in the case of jpegs or other "lossy" image formats. So my approach would be to put my images in a "non-lossy" format off to the side on a detachable hard drive with periodic backups to CD or DVD. I would then place copies of these images, as jpegs or whatever format was desired, in a folder on my root drive. The location of this folder, I'll call it TMGImages just to give it a name for discussion, will always remain the same whether I am working with the application on my desktop or on my laptop, or on the next generation of PC down the road. I will link to the images from TMG.

 

In the scenario outlined above, the last thing that I would want would be for the images to be edited within the TMG viewer, even simple edits like 90 degree rotation. This is because I will always be working with a copy of the image from within TMG, never with the original. So if I wanted to make any change to an image, I would make it to a copy of the "non-lossy" format original, replace the original if I am satisfied with it, and then put a new copy in place in the folder that TMG links to. If I edited the image within TMG, I would then be faced with having to make the same change to the original anyway.

 

Am I off base here? This entire thread has caught me a little bit by surprise, because during the years I have been using various image viewers for editing photos that I have taken with my digital cameras, I don't know that I have ever encountered an image viewer that modified an image that was simply being viewed.

[laura1814 0]

FWIW, I agree with you, and I think that if the image viewer is truly "editing" the images, then that violates WG's oft-stated principal of never modifying your data without permission.

 

If you do something like rotate the image, TMG should ask you if you want to save it, making it clear that this is modifying the original image (and if adding a choice for the level of compression is too complicated, then it should save it uncompressed). Otherwise, it should work just like the Windoze Picture and Fax Viewer.

[ggilbert1 0]

Glenn,

I agree that it should just display the image, but if you change the image, then I would prefer those changes to stay. I often scan in an image in my photoediting software, but rotate it in TMG, and I'd have to go back and correct those if TMG didn't save those changes.

 

Hmm! If sent a Second Site CD off to WhollyGenes for reproduction, and got 100 copies back with even a couple if census images orientated sideways I would not be a happy camper.

[Jim Byram 0]

Just to clarify. Going through Help, there is nothing to suggest that the image viewer should do anything other than view the image or that the original image file should ever be changed.

 

The overall design of the Exhibit Log is incomplete and ambiguous. You can scan an image but editing tools are not provided even for simple editing and Help does not suggest that the viewer is intended to be an editor for scanned images.

 

And, lastly, the design of the viewer does not meet even the minimum requirements of an editor. You can't 'undo' or 'redo' a manipulation. You have no options to 'save' or 'cancel' after doing manipulations.

[laura1814 0]

The overall design of the Exhibit Log is incomplete and ambiguous.

 

I didn't say this yesterday, trying to avoid being hypercritical, but I couldn't agree more. I remember the very first time I used it, I couldn't even figure out how to add an image, and I've been a computer geek for 25 years! I finally had to post on TMG-L, or maybe I asked Lee. And the method for adding a new image still hasn't changed! (It needs a button, file menu choice, and/or double-click with left mouse button, IMHO.) And then there's the issue of event exhibits vs. personal exhibits. I think you should be able to access ALL exhibits for a person (i.e., including all of those attatched to any person's event) in one place at one time, and to designate any of them as primary. I could go on, but I'll stop there.

 

 

Notwithstanding the above, I love TMG!!

[Excalibur 0]

Whatever is done, the original should not change. If the option to rotate the image is used, then the image should be rotated from the original, not a different saved version of the original. Maybe this is a case of less is more -- do ALL image editing/changing before putting it into TMG and TMG handles it the way it is with no changes.

[GenerationGoneBy 0]

And then there's the issue of event exhibits vs. personal exhibits. I think you should be able to access ALL exhibits for a person (i.e., including all of those attatched to any person's event) in one place at one time, and to designate any of them as primary. I could go on, but I'll stop there.

Notwithstanding the above, I love TMG!!

 

 

YES, YES, YES. I have been preaching this sermon for years. And I think the same for repository tasks. Please, consider this for the next update. It is so irritating to only be able to look at pictures attached to a person if they are P1 and P2 to the tag. When an image has 15 people, P1 and P2 are totally arbritary. I just pick two people. And the other 13 HAVE to witnesses, whether I like it or not, which I don't.

 

Whatever is done, the original should not change. If the option to rotate the image is used, then the image should be rotated from the original, not a different saved version of the original. Maybe this is a case of less is more -- do ALL image editing/changing before putting it into TMG and TMG handles it the way it is with no changes.

 

 

I agree the ORIGINAL shouldn't change. But TMG should be able to show it rotated if that is what I want. I don't want to change the original, just the way TMG and SS view it.

[Jim Byram 0]

I agree the ORIGINAL shouldn't change. But TMG should be able to show it rotated if that is what I want. I don't want to change the original, just the way TMG and SS view it.

Teresa,

 

Just to be clear. If you rotate and save the image, you are editing and changing the original file. The viewer allows you to rotate the image for temporary viewing; however, if you exit the viewer, the original image in the EL is going to appear just like it began with no change. (when the current bug is fixed) Temporarily rotating the image in the viewer will have absolutely no effect on how the image appears in SS.

 

Jim

[Excalibur 0]

But TMG should be able to show it rotated if that is what I want. I don't want to change the original, just the way TMG and SS view it.

Let's see if I've got this correct.

You have a picture and its on the horizontal plane.

You add the picture to TMG as an exhibit on the horizontal plane.

You have one place that you want the picture to be viewed on the vertical plane.

You tell TMG to rotate that one instance only, using the exact same picture, but keep the other views as they are.

You want SS to be able to display both the horizontal view and the one instance rotated view using only one picture.

Is that close to correct? If it is, it would probably require a major code change to TMG and SS so that each program knew which instance to rotate, which direction to rotate and how much to rotate (90, 180, 270), and it would have to examine for those changes for each picture. I think I'd rather rotate the picture myself and use two different exhibits, that way I control what is seen and how it is seen.

[John Cardinal 0]

Tom,

 

For many of the reasons you mention, and for other reasons as well, I doubt Second Site (SS) will ever manipulate images as part of making a site. Rotation is almost certainly out of the question, partly because I don't want SS to manipulate images, but also because there isn't any place for the user to specify that they want the image rotated.

 

I agree 100% with your comment that you'd "rather rotate the picture myself and use two different exhibits, that way I control what is seen and how it is seen." On-the-fly manipulation (scaling, rotating, etc.) of images can lead to unpredictable results and while I think automation of those tasks is a good thing, the user should review the results prior to processed images being placed on a web site. That's why I added some scaling features in TMG Utility, rather thean SS. If I had put that feature in SS, the image would have been resized every time the site was made rather than just once, and the user couldn't review the results until the whole site had been made. Any adjustment to the process would mean rebuilding the site, recreating narratives and reprocessing images that were correct in order to adjust one or more images that weren't.

 

In my opinion, there should be little to no image manipulation in TMG. There are low-cost (and even free) programs that specialize in image manipulation and that job should be left to them.

[RGC 0]

Two comments on this thread:

 

First, I don't find the TMG-provided image editing a sore point. If you don't want to use it, don't. However - especially a few years ago - few TMG users really understood image handling, and having the minimal features in TMG was probably a good thing. Even today there are likely some - if not many - users what are unfamiliar with third-party editors. They are the ones who do NOT participate in this thread - or perhaps even in the forum or mailing list. That does not mean, however, that I approve of the TMG editor saving with a resolution/size different than the source if possible. Notwithstanding any third-party stumbling block, the data is obvously avaliable since it must be used in the loading process of an editor.

 

Second, a couple of years ago I made a test of the alleged cumulative degradation of successive JPG editing runs, which many respected users contend is true. In the end I compared the original with the final by expanding down to the pixel level. I found no degradation after ten passes - and didn't go any further. I explain this with an assumption: the editor changes the JPG to bitmap (or something similar), then edits as desired, then compresses the resulting bitmap using the desired compression. At that time I posted the results (I think on the list) and asked anyone interested to make a similar test and provide the results. No one accepted the offer, as far as I saw. Of course the compression factor has to remain the same throughout the test. I used 75%, then reran with 25% for a few passes with the same result. I remain open to a well-documented test that shows other results than I got; I'm willing to be proven wrong.

 

FWIW I have done a lot of image processing, and I agree with those who say to keep archival copies of graphics and retain separately those used for TMG/SS, mostly so that the resolution and sizing can be done to properly display the graphics for various output media.

 

Dick

[Alison 0]

First, I don't find the TMG-provided image editing a sore point. If you don't want to use it, don't. However - especially a few years ago - few TMG users really understood image handling, and having the minimal features in TMG was probably a good thing. Even today there are likely some - if not many - users what are unfamiliar with third-party editors. They are the ones who do NOT participate in this thread - or perhaps even in the forum or mailing list. That does not mean, however, that I approve of the TMG editor saving with a resolution/size different than the source if possible. Notwithstanding any third-party stumbling block, the data is obvously avaliable since it must be used in the loading process of an editor.

 

If people want to use these features I have no problem with it, but personally I thought TMG would act like any other image program where changes are lost unless you save them. It bothers me that the program would be modifying my external images in anyway without asking. If the controls stay should you ar leat be prompted to save the changes? If you say no, or make no changes shouldn't the program leave the original untouched? To me at least this seems like the most logical assumption and at least at first glance I don't see how any current users would loose anything but those commenting on this thread would also get what they want, an image viewer and no more.

[amaranth 0]

OK so there appears to be a bug when viewing external exhibits. I now have no pictures on TMG. No point in having nice pictures which degrade each time you view them. Anyone know if TMG are working on this problem and if so when a fix is likely? Is there a list of known problems that are being dealt with?

[Jim Byram 0]

OK so there appears to be a bug when viewing external exhibits. I now have no pictures on TMG. No point in having nice pictures which degrade each time you view them. Anyone know if TMG are working on this problem and if so when a fix is likely? Is there a list of known problems that are being dealt with?

First of all, a JPEG is saved if you view it and click [OK] at 0% compression so the resave results in no degredation.

 

Second, you can view an image and then click [Cancel] and completely bypass this issue. So there is a very simple work-around.

 

The design has been changed a bit to deal with this issue and the updated code should be in the next program update.

[Pierce.Reid 0]

I use irfanview image viewer/editor, which is free, fast, allows basic editing, and allows you to control the jpeg compression. http://www.irfanview.com/

 

I think exhibits should be kept out of the TMG database, and should be manipulated by specific appropriate tools. For more complex editing, I use Photoshop Elements, but by default I use irfanview.

 

Pierce

[ggilbert1 0]

The design has been changed a bit to deal with this issue and the updated code should be in the next program update.

Jim,

Thanks for the progress report

[Jim Byram 0]

I think exhibits should be kept out of the TMG database, and should be manipulated by specific appropriate tools. For more complex editing, I use Photoshop Elements, but by default I use irfanview.

I agree but this has nothing to do with the issue under discussion here.