Reduce default thumbnail size

[Beep6581]

I suggest quickly changing the default thumbnail size for the RT5 release from ThumbnailSize=240 to ThumbnailSize=150.

This is what users will see when they install RT5 and open a photo on a common "full HD" (1920x1080) screen: https://i.imgur.com/UPvUBff.jpg It would be even worse on lower resolutions. They will not immediately know that they can press "t" to show the filmstrip toolbar from which they can make those thumbs smaller.

At 150 (two clicks smaller) things are far better balanced: https://i.imgur.com/1jjKNVT.jpg

[Beep6581]

On a related note, at some point in the past I opened a feature request that the thumbnail size of the thumbs in the Filmstrip be decoupled from the size of those in the File Browser, the idea being that you can have large thumbs in the File Browser but usually want small thumbs in the Filmstrip. There is such a feature, but it is disabled by default (Preferences > File Browser > Thumbnail Options > Same thumbnail height between the Editor's panel and the File Browser). The comment in the code says that this is disabled for speed reasons, but is there an actual number for the performance difference, is it noticeable?

The current defaults are:

ThumbnailSize=240
ThumbnailSizeTab=180
ThumbnailSizeQueue=160
SameThumbSize=1

If we were to disable sameThumbSize by default, I would suggest these defaults:

ThumbnailSize=150
ThumbnailSizeTab=150
ThumbnailSizeQueue=150
SameThumbSize=0

If we were to not disable SameThumbSize, I would still suggest changing the defaults because it doesn't make sense that the sizes between Tab and Queue should differ by 20px:

ThumbnailSize=150
ThumbnailSizeTab=150
ThumbnailSizeQueue=150
SameThumbSize=1

Why 150 instead of 160? Only because RT came up with 150 when I clicked "-". I'm fine with 160 if it's any faster because its divisible by 8.

Why 150 instead of 240? Because the most common screen resolutions are still 1366x768 and 1920x1080*, not higher, and on a fresh install users will see the thumbnail size +/- buttons in the File Browser but not in the Filmstrip allowing them to easily make them larger if they want to. I have 1920x1080 on both laptops, one's 13" and the other 18". A size of 150 looks fine in both the Filmstrip and File Browser on both screens, while 240 looks fine in the File Browser but too large in the Filmstrip.

• sources:
• http://gs.statcounter.com/#resolution-ww-monthly-201412-201505
• http://www.rapidtables.com/web/dev/screen-resolution-statistics.htm
• http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

Finally, I would replace the SameThumbSize label

Same thumbnail height between the Editor's panel and the File Browser

with

Same thumbnail height between the Filmstrip and the File Browser

[Floessie]

@Beep6581 Maybe I don't get it, but what's the difference to SameThumbSize=1 here?

ThumbnailSize=150
ThumbnailSizeTab=150
ThumbnailSizeQueue=150
SameThumbSize=0

[Beep6581]

@Floessie it's only a usability thing. New users won't know about that option in Preferences. If I were new to RT I would not assume that the size of thumbs in the File Browser is locked to be the same as those in the Filmstrip because the two play a different role. Personally I would find 150 a good size for both the Filmstrip and the File Browser, but I know from the forum that some people like large File Browser thumbs, so they will click "+" and may be surprised that now their Filmstrip covers half the screen, and then they will come running to the forum asking how to change that... So the only argument I have for SameThumbSize=0 is to prevent that.

[Floessie]

@Beep6581 Okay, now I see. Thanks.

[Beep6581]

@Floessie but do you [agree]/[disagree]/[don't care]? I need to know to make a decision.

[Beep6581]

I went on a limb and assumed 160 might be marginally faster as it's divisible by 8.

Pull request: https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/pull/3536/files

[Floessie]

@Beep6581 I agree that your proposal makes sense. But I don't care, as I'm used to select the image in the file browser and work on it with the thumbs panel above the editor panel hidden. For me the file browser thumbs are all about indentification, so their sizes don't matter to me as long as I can discern them. :smile:

[heckflosse]

:+1: for the changes.

[Hombre57]

SameThumbSize=1 is an optimization feature as well, since RT won't have to reprocess the thumbnails when switching back and forth between the Editor panel and the File panel.

[Beep6581]

I mentioned that, but do you have any numbers? I don't feel any difference in speed and I'm not on a fast machine.

[Hombre57]

I don't have numbers, but it obviously depend on the number of image in your directory and depend of the thumbnail size. With 200 files, you should notice the difference I guess.

[Hombre57]

Btw, performance and cache size on disk for thumbnails depend on MaxPreviewHeight as well. The smaller the faster, but of course the user will have to change this value in Preference if he want to get bigger thumbnail size. Mine is set to 200px.

However I don't know how RT handles a new value : if it reprocess all the thumbnails, then there is an initial loss of time... To be confirmed.

[heckflosse]

Mine is set to 120px which is already larger than my thumbnail ;)

[Beep6581]

@Hombre57 we already decreased MaxPreviewHeight (maxThumbnailHeight) from 400 to 250 in May 2015, in commit b192a7f012a036f3c84e8c59450272c872bd57a1.

I set all sizes to 160 as in the PR. With SameThumbSize=1 it took 66 seconds to generate 200 thumbs in the File Browser (3 runs, cache deleted every time). Clicking on the Editor was instant. Back in the File Browser, clicking "+" twice to enlarge them to 250 was also instant. Clicking back to the Editor was instant. With SameThumbSize=0 it took the same 66 seconds to generate 200 thumbs in the File Browser (3 runs, cache deleted every time). Clicking on the Editor was instant. Back in the File Browser, clicking "+" twice to enlarge them to 250 was also instant. Clicking back to the Editor was instant.

There must be a speed difference, but not one I could observe.

I would not like to spend more time on this. There were no objections to this part of the PR:

ThumbnailSize=160
ThumbnailSizeTab=160
ThumbnailSizeQueue=160

I believe setting SameThumbSize=0 may improve the user experience for reasons mentioned in this comment and that is the only reason I suggest doing that. Shall we change it or leave it?

[Hombre57]

Given your numbers, I have no objection on enhancing the user experience with this patch.