Author Topic: Simple Photo Resizer - Please Give Feedback (Read 26468 times)

Renegade · « **on:** January 23, 2011, 10:21 PM »

My wife came to me and wanted to resize a photo. Well, we've been through this before... She's got software to do it, but it's not easy enough. I showed her again, but she doesn't like IrfanView because it's simply too complicated. So...

~~The all new Renegade Photo Resizer!~~ ed. Super Simple Photo Resizer

Is it easy enough to use? I'm looking to make it stupidly simple. So simple that a politician could use it~!

I had options and stuff in there... but I figured that it was just crap that isn't needed. Who cares about JPG ratios? 80% is good enough. Exact sizes? BAH! Slider. Close enough. How many people actually know that you must have your photo dimensions as multiples of 16 in order to minimize quality loss? Not many... I take care of the little stuff and leave only the MAJOR decisions to the user.

It requires .NET v4 though. There's no installer. Just the EXE.

(It's not final quality yet -- a few tiny things to tweak.)

UPDATE 2011-03-25:

I've posted follow up in this thread.

lanux128 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:45 PM »

nice, it works here. but then you wanted feedback..

so here goes:

1. since the app deals with photos, how about the preserving the timestamp to be the same as original.
2. i feel lazy and want to use the scroll wheel on the slider to resize the images

just some thoughts.

nudone · « **Reply #2 on:** January 24, 2011, 01:34 AM »

maybe a "crop" feature. or is that going too far?

Renegade · « **Reply #3 on:** January 24, 2011, 01:44 AM »

nice, it works here. but then you wanted feedback.. so here goes:

1. since the app deals with photos, how about the preserving the timestamp to be the same as original.
2. i feel lazy and want to use the scroll wheel on the slider to resize the images

just some thoughts.
-lanux128 (January 23, 2011, 11:45 PM)

Good ideas.

1 - I'll be doing some additional work on tags and that later.
2 - Got some done there -- need to smooth it out a bit though.

maybe a "crop" feature. or is that going too far?
-nudone (January 24, 2011, 01:34 AM)

I think that's a bit far at the moment. I'd rather stick to super-simple for the moment. Later I might look into doing a cropping utility, but right now -- simple, simple, simple.

My current aim is to build up a small suite of super-simple programs that are SOOOOO simple that you really need to be basically brain dead to not be able to use them easily.

e.g. No menus. No toolbars. An "X" button in the title bar should be enough. (Duplicate Photo Finder does this.)

You know that techno-tard that pesters you for help all the time? Yeah. That one. That's who I'm aiming for.

nudone · « **Reply #4 on:** January 24, 2011, 01:54 AM »

sounds like a good idea for a complete range of programs/tools.

you'll need an equally super simple/obvious website to store them at. make it a point that anything requiring "instruction" or "explanation" is too much. every tool is 100% intuitive and takes about 5 seconds to realise what it does.

your website could be the place to go for every google simple how-to search. (and then google would buy you out - or just imitate your idea.)

PhilB66 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 24, 2011, 02:08 AM »

My current aim is to build up a small suite of super-simple programs that are SOOOOO simple that you really need to be basically brain dead to not be able to use them easily.

You know that techno-tard that pesters you for help all the time? Yeah. That one. That's who I'm aiming for.
-Renegade (January 24, 2011, 01:44 AM)

Whoa. Having read your initial post, I concluded that Mrs. Renegade was the inspiration for this upcoming set of tools. Shouldn't you be looking for a relationship councel first? The wife might be offended.

Renegade · « **Reply #6 on:** January 24, 2011, 02:30 AM »

sounds like a good idea for a complete range of programs/tools.
-nudone (January 24, 2011, 01:54 AM)

That's the idea.

Speaking of which... Got an idea for a domain name... Hold on...

Grrrr... Internet crawling... Like always...

you'll need an equally super simple/obvious website to store them at. make it a point that anything requiring "instruction" or "explanation" is too much. every tool is 100% intuitive and takes about 5 seconds to realise what it does.

your website could be the place to go for every google simple how-to search. (and then google would buy you out - or just imitate your idea.)
-nudone (January 24, 2011, 01:54 AM)

I'd love to build a set then have it bought out.

Whoa. Having read your initial post, I concluded that Mrs. Renegade was the inspiration for this upcoming set of tools. Shouldn't you be looking for a relationship councel first? The wife might be offended.
-PhilB66 (January 24, 2011, 02:08 AM)

HAHAHAHAHAHA~!

No. Not at all. I wanted to do it before then. She was simply the catalyst to get me to do it. She already saw this thread -- I showed her.

I have a lot more planned as well. Just... Gotta do them one at a time. She needed it then, so there we go.

She's actually very smart -- doing her PhD now -- she just doesn't want to bother with software -- she wants to solve problems -- which is something techies tend to forget -- people have pain, and software doesn't solve that pain -- solutions solve pain -- software can implement the solution though. She's not alone. There are a lot of people that just want to "get things done" without any complexity to create additional barriers.

Got the domain~!

bob99 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 24, 2011, 09:15 AM »

She's actually very smart -- doing her PhD now -- she just doesn't want to bother with software -- she wants to solve problems -- which is something techies tend to forget -- people have pain, and software doesn't solve that pain -- solutions solve pain -- software can implement the solution though. She's not alone. There are a lot of people that just want to "get things done" without any complexity to create additional barriers.
-Renegade (January 24, 2011, 02:30 AM)

Perfectly said

The KISS method for people who need it or just when they need it.

rjbull · « **Reply #8 on:** January 24, 2011, 10:15 AM »

I use Resize by Peter Bone, small and doesn't need .NET.
[Edit 2011-01-24, 22:13] Forgot to add, it's freeware. [/Edit]

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #9 on:** January 24, 2011, 11:37 AM »

My favorite program for this kind of stuff was always Jasc ImageCommander v2.0 (from 1996). I still use it here at the office because my Win7 is 32-bit. But ImageCommander is 16-bit, so I can't use it on the x64 box at home.

I frequently fall into the don't make me think, just make the %*&# picture bigger category ... so this could be quite handy.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2011, 02:38 PM »

My wife came to me and wanted to resize a photo. Well, we've been through this before... She's got software to do it, but it's not easy enough. I showed her again, but she doesn't like IrfanView because it's simply too complicated. So...

The all new Renegade Photo Resizer!
(see attachment in previous post)
Is it easy enough to use? I'm looking to make it stupidly simple. So simple that a politician could use it~!

I had options and stuff in there... but I figured that it was just crap that isn't needed. Who cares about JPG ratios? 80% is good enough. Exact sizes? BAH! Slider. Close enough. How many people actually know that you must have your photo dimensions as multiples of 16 in order to minimize quality loss? Not many... I take care of the little stuff and leave only the MAJOR decisions to the user.

It requires .NET v4 though. There's no installer. Just the EXE.

(It's not final quality yet -- a few tiny things to tweak.)

-Renegade (January 23, 2011, 10:21 PM)

Looks just the job for people who need a 'click-do-this' approach with trusted software.

A super-simple CD/DVD burner might be nice to go with this (more simple than those currently available). I can get people in 'don't understand' boat to use a CD whereas they're often phased by the idea of external storage.

Renegade · « **Reply #11 on:** January 24, 2011, 03:58 PM »

I frequently fall into the don't make me think, just make the %*&# picture bigger category ... so this could be quite handy.
-Stoic Joker (January 24, 2011, 11:37 AM)

Sorry... It's only for photo reductions. You can't enlarge photos with it.

Again, that was one of those decisions I took away from the user. Since all enlargements cause a reduction in quality, I didn't see any point in it.

Also, the photos you get from digital cameras now are so big, that the only thing you can do with them is to reduce them.

i.e. People want to reduce photos to make them smaller to upload or email (most often).

Looks just the job for people who need a 'click-do-this' approach with trusted software.

A super-simple CD/DVD burner might be nice to go with this (more simple than those currently available). I can get people in 'don't understand' boat to use a CD whereas they're often phased by the idea of external storage.

-cranioscopical (January 24, 2011, 02:38 PM)

I've been wanting to do that one for years now... Every so often I look into it, but end up busy with other things. I think I should put that higher up on the priority list once I get a couple more photo utilities done. (First focus = camera.)

rjbull · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2011, 04:17 PM »

People want to reduce photos to make them smaller to upload or email (most often).
-Renegade (January 24, 2011, 03:58 PM)

A one-click system to reduce any size original to a specified size for e-mail/forum posting?

Renegade · « **Reply #13 on:** January 24, 2011, 04:38 PM »

People want to reduce photos to make them smaller to upload or email (most often).
-Renegade (January 24, 2011, 03:58 PM)

A one-click system to reduce any size original to a specified size for e-mail/forum posting?
-rjbull (January 24, 2011, 04:17 PM)

Exactly.

However, this requires 1 drag & drop, 1 slide, and 1 click. So a bit more than 1 click, but not much.

rjbull · « **Reply #14 on:** January 24, 2011, 05:10 PM »

this requires 1 drag & drop, 1 slide, and 1 click. So a bit more than 1 click
-Renegade (January 24, 2011, 04:38 PM)

I omitted the drag & drop

I think I meant, more or less, the equivalent of leaving the slider at the same point next time you enter the program, so that all your output images will be the same size. Hmmm... mind going fuzzy... time I got some sleep...

ha14 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 25, 2011, 05:28 AM »

Nice one, quick and easy, but batch conversion?

Renegade · « **Reply #16 on:** January 25, 2011, 06:29 AM »

Nice one, quick and easy, but batch conversion?
-ha14 (January 25, 2011, 05:28 AM)

I've actually got a batch converter done already, but it's not ready for the general public. A few issues there... It's in a bulk uploader for Flickr that I wrote. (Resize - upload - repeat)

One of the issues is directly related to the same issues in this thread.

It's funny that you mention that though, as an overwhelming amount of the software I write is all mass production/bulk processing software. None of that ever gets released though.

I suppose it would be ok to throw a toggle switch in there... Single <> Batch

But, I have a little job to upload with my Flickr uploader right now... back in a bit... (Motorhead fans -- you're gonna LOVE this~!)

cmpm · « **Reply #17 on:** January 25, 2011, 10:50 AM »

This one looks simple. No install, just the ,exe.

http://www.nirmaltv....rmarker-image-tools/

http://union-d.ru/dev/node/6

Curt · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2011, 02:59 AM »

Congratulations on your new application, Renegade ;-)

While in theory I agree with many of your point of views, I simply cannot understand the reason for this one:

... JPG ratios? 80% is good enough.
-Renegade (January 23, 2011, 10:21 PM)

In my opinion, 80% is never good enough. Especially the iris in the eye will need more, I think. Well, in fact the "80%" is the very reason I haven't tested your program. But of course, the program was not made for me but for your wife ;-)

Curt · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2011, 03:08 AM »

by the way, all your wife needs to remember is, to press Ctrl+R > Alt+1 (for 1024x768 pixels), (or Alt+9 for 1920x1080 pixels),> OK > save.

Renegade · « **Reply #20 on:** January 26, 2011, 03:47 AM »

Congratulations on your new application, Renegade ;-)

While in theory I agree with many of your point of views, I simply cannot understand the reason for this one:

... JPG ratios? 80% is good enough.
-Renegade (January 23, 2011, 10:21 PM)

In my opinion, 80% is never good enough. Especially the iris in the eye will need more, I think. Well, in fact the "80%" is the very reason I haven't tested your program. But of course, the program was not made for me but for your wife ;-)

-Curt (January 26, 2011, 02:59 AM)

Years and years of experience.

80% for JPGs is almost indistinguishable from 100%, and the file size savings are massive in comparison.

Remember, this is designed for people to produce an "end product" picture that's going to be used somewhere for viewing, not for processing again.

But, the proof is in the pudding. Here are 2 pictures, creatively named A and B. (Down below - scroll then scroll.)

Look at each one quickly to see if you can tell the difference, then take a closer look and see if you can tell the difference. Make sure to view them at the same position on your screen as viewing angles can shift perception.

Scroll more...

Scroll more...

Scroll more...

Scroll more...

A

B

Have a look, then tell me which one is 80% and which is 100%. The 80% file is 285 KB while the 100% file is 890 KB.

Make sure to not look at the file size if you download them as that defeats the purpose.

*If* you can tell the difference, note just how difficult it is to do so.

285 vs. 890.

That's why I chose 80.

(edit -- change images to full to avoid load time bias)

nudone · « **Reply #21 on:** January 26, 2011, 04:52 AM »

I think this type of image works fine for the compression you've set. I can see very tiny artifacts introduced into the face and shirt on image A - but that's because I know what to look for when doing these types of comparison.

But, the point is, without being able to do such a comparison I would be perfectly happy with image A - the difference is insignificant anyway.

I think for the general purpose the program will be used for it's worth that amount of compression. If people were trying to reduce images that contained more solid blocks of colour and hard edges then 80% is a bit too much, more like 90 or even 95 would be about right - but, again, that's not really the intended audience and use.

Renegade · « **Reply #22 on:** January 26, 2011, 05:03 AM »

I think this type of image works fine for the compression you've set. I can see very tiny artifacts introduced into the face and shirt on image A - but that's because I know what to look for when doing these types of comparison.

But, the point is, without being able to do such a comparison I would be perfectly happy with image A - the difference is insignificant anyway.

I think for the general purpose the program will be used for it's worth that amount of compression. If people were trying to reduce images that contained more solid blocks of colour and hard edges then 80% is a bit too much, more like 90 or even 95 would be about right - but, again, that's not really the intended audience and use.
-nudone (January 26, 2011, 04:52 AM)

And the resident expert steps in~!

Being an expert as you are, I'm quite sure that you're more easily going to see those quality reductions than your average Joe.

And yes -- for certain types of images, 80 is going to be low. But, for your normal photograph taken on a digital camera by Joe Average, you're not really going to get those kinds of hard lines and solids. Which is why I went with 80. It preserves enough quality, and gets the file size down to a quickly emailed or quickly uploaded size.

It's one of those things that I just figured isn't worth bothering with because it's only going to confuse people. How many people actually understand much about compression, let alone lossey compression which is far more complicated.

To put something like that in, I think a simple rating of high, medium, and low quality would be more than enough. High at 90%, medium at 80%, and low at 60%.

nudone -- what %'s would you use?

nudone · « **Reply #23 on:** January 26, 2011, 05:22 AM »

I don't think it's a bad thing just to stick at 80% and leave it at that.

If you think it's worth making it more complicated, the range you've said sounds fine. Is there any chance of making it give you a "live" preview of the quality before the image is saved?

If I was going to add anything to the compression values I might add 95%. I just find that when I'm saving out various images for web use, I'll start with a .png (perfect quality) then compare it with several jpeg compressions. I might get away with using as much as 50% compression on the (very) rare occasion, very often I'll find 90% is too much and resort to 95% simply because it will give a result that is almost indistinguishable from the original .png but without the file size. Nothing surprising there, of course, that's just my view on 95% - you get a near perfect image BUT you have reduced the file "weight" a bit - which can't be bad.

Having said all that, you are reducing the dimensions of the image too so my 95% example may be of little relevance.

~~Providing drag and drop functions may be more handy really (if it doesn't do that already).~~

edit: just tested it - it does do drag and drop. excellent.

Renegade · « **Reply #24 on:** January 26, 2011, 05:28 AM »

edit: just tested it - it does do drag and drop. excellent.
-nudone (January 26, 2011, 05:22 AM)

Hahahah~! That's the ONLY way to load an image with it. I figured clicking & browsing is simply too slow & difficult. And, it needs another button that clutters up the UI.