SageThumbs - Thumbnails all over the Windows

[Tuxman]

Basic Info

App Name	SageThumbs
App URL	http://code.google.com/p/sagethumbs/
App Version Reviewed	2.0.0.8
Test System Specs	Win7, 2 GHz, 3 GB RAM, some hard disk is also there, yes...
Supported OSes	Windows 2000/XP/2003/Vista/2008/7
Support Methods	You can contact the author in several forums and via bug tracker if something is going wrong. Primarily he seems to use the XnView forums.
Pricing Scheme	SageThumbs is FLOSS. Don't care about pricing.

Intro:

SageThumbs is some free software I stumbled upon in xplorer² forums. It adds a couple of image processing functions to Windows Explorer and applications which use its API (like xplorer², FileZilla et al.)

Mainly, these applications get thumbnail support for a few hundred image formats and a new context submenu with a preview and rudimentary editing/converting functions as seen on the screenshots above. Shell columns for extended image information are also added.

Who is this app designed for:

Web designers and random photographers who use Windows might be very interested in this software as they don't need to run a separate gallery software to get a quick glance on which is which. Also, it avoids misclicks when uploading them as FileZilla, for example, does not have a thumbnail function by default. (Or I am just too stupid to find it?)

SageThumbs - Thumbnails all over the Windows

The Good

Seemless integration into the system environment. No cluttering as everything is only displayed when available and can be turned off separately. Unlike similar software, it is free and being continuously developed. Once you installed it, you can be sure that a week later a couple of updates have been released. - So it is also quite safe to assume that there are no critical bugs left or, if there are, they will be fixed very soon.

Also it is very fast. It does not even have any noticable influence on a folder's loading time. (I must confess that I don't have "large image galleries" in only 1 folder, so I can't test it under heavy conditions.)

The needs improvement section

I, personally, am not a fan of "everything has to have a downside". Just take it. 

Why I think you should use this product

It is not a "must-have" but a "nice to have", especially when you work with image files at work or something.

Links to other reviews of this application

http://beatmasters-w...lite-blog.de/?p=8853 (German)
http://www.ghacks.ne...mage-format-support/
http://www.instantfu...w-thumbnails-of.html (not really a good review IMO)

[cranioscopical]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to write this, much appreciated.   

[Tuxman]

No problem. In fact, I wish there could have been more things to write about it, but after all, it is a very tiny software. One tool, one purpose. 

[tomos]

thanks Tuxman, there is a viewer that does something similar but shows the thumb in the main context menu - was it imagine maybe? http://open-imagine....eforge.net/?q=node/4

[fenixproductions]

@tomos
AFAIR Standard Imagine installation offers Shell menu integration.

[fenixproductions]

Is licensing clear here?
SageThumbs page mentions GNU GPL v2 but it is based on GFL Library. Knowing that the latest is XnView related it would be nice to know can it be used in commercial environment.

Searched Xv forum for an answer but there seems to be none

[Tuxman]

GFL is a "free library" according to its website, so I can't see a reason why the GPL should not be applicable here. 

[fenixproductions]

@Tuxman
From its website (scroll to bottom):

Commercial use of GFK SDK is not authorized without agreement.

What always make me wonder is the definition of "commercial use". What does it mean for GFK?

At work:
1. I can't develop my own software based on it but use applications from other people
2. I can't use it at all - no GFK in memory.

Which is valid?

[Tuxman]

The GFL is not the GFK SDK, right?

[fenixproductions]

The GFL is not the GFK SDK, right?

-Tuxman (August 09, 2011, 07:25 AM)

Dunno. I guess it may be typo from Pierre's side. Whole page describes GFL and last sentence... GFK:
http://xnview.com/en/gfl.html

[Tuxman]

Ask the author then. 

[KynloStephen66515]

Awesome review!  

Just downloaded it based on your findings and will give it a better test-drive in the morning when im a little more awake!  

For now thoguh, I can see this coming in handy!  Especially with the fact it not only converts files, it also does it as a copy, so the original is not modified in any way! - Very very cool indeed!

[Tuxman]

Looking forward to your impressions then!

[CWuestefeld]

I just encountered this program in the course of processing photos from my recent vacation. I was looking for a way to view the .DNG raw files from Explorer. This program claims to allow this, but in fact it didn't do anything at all.

I looked at two other things. Microsoft has a newer codec pack, but it doesn't support DNG. Adobe (the creators of the DNG format) have a codec, and that one does work.

So, if you're looking for thumbnails of DNG files, go that Adobe codec and save your time.

[Tuxman]

Never heard of .DNG files.

[CWuestefeld]

Never heard of .DNG files.

-Tuxman (August 16, 2011, 12:18 PM)

It's a kind of RAW file. It used to be that every different camera (that can save RAW files) used its own, individual format. This is getting to be a problem for makers of image processing software. So Adobe stepped up and defined a standard RAW format, DNG (Digital NeGative), that is usable by all.

My Pentax camera gives a choice of DNG or camera-specific PEF filed. It seems to me that my chances of being able to read the files, say, 20 years from now is much better if I use a format backed by Adobe than a Pentax one that's (somewhat) specific to my camera model.

[Tuxman]

Ah, I see. Standards, who needs them?

[CWuestefeld]

Ah, I see. Standards, who needs them?

-Tuxman (August 16, 2011, 12:30 PM)

  DNG *is* a standard, defined by Adobe. It's the camera manufacturers who have been causing the proliferation of formats. Adobe is helping to solve it by creating a standard that's licensed to be usable by all.

I imagine that you're actually objecting that it's not an "open" standard, to which I reply that there are countless other examples of successful proprietary standards, like PDF and RTF.

[Tuxman]

It was kind of sarcastic, related to our "every camera has its own format" thingy. Anyway: Yep, open standards are the best standards. The problem with Adobe or Google or whoseever standards is that they might involve incompatibility with other software than the own. It took a while to have PDF available in third-party software, for example.