ACDSee VS IrfanView?

[Lesmo16]

I will try cPicture now, you got me.

GOTCHA

The problem with cPicture is, that it couldn't be as fine integrated in TC as the other both.

[SanskritFritz]

2icfu
Pls keep us posted about cPicture, not that i dont trust you Lesmo , i tried it and did not like the gui at all. I did not have the time to test it, but if it is really that fast, i will definitely use it despite of its ugliness (IMHO!).

[xnview]

331 JPEGs average 2,2MB with empty cache
cPicture: 6 seconds (yes! 6)
XnView: 75 seconds
IrfanView: 75 seconds

Next version will be 10 times faster for JPEG thumbnails.
Pierre.

[Lesmo16]

... and did not like the gui at all.

... despite of its ugliness (IMHO!).

Yeah, it isn't that beautiful - but are we?

[SanskritFritz]

You guys are beautiful, no doubt

[icfu]

I haven't found an option to change thumbnail size in cPicture, any clue?

Your extraction performance result is only possible when the files are in file cache already I think. cPicture doesn't do Anti Aliasing so the preview thumbs are not really high quality as with Explorer, XnView or IrfanView.

cPicture can't compete, this is my result till now, sorry to say...

Icfu

[Lesmo16]

Next version will be 10 times faster for JPEG thumbnails.

@xnview:
Wow, that sounds promising!
And your GUI is the nicest of the 3 competitors!

[Lesmo16]

@icfu:

I haven't found an option to change thumbnail size in cPicture, any clue?

That isn't possible.

Your extraction performance result is only possible when the files are in file cache already I think.

No - I made a new folder and copied all files into it, so it was the first time reading for sure.

cPicture doesn't do Anti Aliasing so the preview thumbs are not really high quality as with Explorer, XnView or IrfanView.

That's not necessary IMHO.

[SanskritFritz]

No - I made a new folder and copied all files into it, so it was the first time reading for sure.

I'm not so sure, on same filenames, with same date and size?

[icfu]

That isn't possible.

This is sad.

No - I made a new folder and copied all files into it, so it was the first time reading for sure.

Just to make sure, I am talking about file cache, not thumbnail cache.
If you create the thumbnails of the same folder first in IrfanView then in cPicture without a reboot the latter one is of course way faster because the files are already cached in RAM.

That's not necessary IMHO.

You get "strange" results when comparing anti aliasing programs with programs that don't do it.

Regarding the quality difference I think it is, especially when thumbs are bigger than "what the hell is that?"-size.

When deactivating anti aliasing in IrfanView, cPicture has no chance at all, I have set IrfanView to 80*80 preview size, I think this is about the size that cPicture uses.

Icfu

[Lesmo16]

@SanskritFritz:

... not that i dont trust you Lesmo ...

Na na na, if I look at your following quote, I think you really don't trust me!

I'm not so sure, on same filenames, with same date and size?

Only for you, I now renamed all files - the same result!

[Lesmo16]

If you create the thumbnails of the same folder first in IrfanView then in cPicture without a reboot the latter one is of course way faster because the files are already cached in RAM.

I did it in the opposite order (like in the comparison list above)

You get "strange" results when comparing anti aliasing programs with programs that don't do it.

That's right for sure - but the question remains: Is anti aliasing necessary for so small images?
It seems, that xnview came to the same conclusion, otherwise I can't imagine how he will decrease the loading time so drastically.

[icfu]

I did it in the opposite order (like in the comparison list above)

Then the difference should be resampling or thumbnail size.

Do another test with resampling off in IrfanView, i_view32.ini:

[Viewing]
UseResample=0

That's right for sure - but the question remains: Is anti aliasing necessary for so small images?

This depends on how much info you want to have in the preview pics. The preview size in cPicture is way too small to make anti aliasing *really* necessary and the missing anti aliasing is the reason why cPicture author probably doesn't include changing thumbnail size.

It seems, that xnview came to the same conclusion, otherwise I can't imagine how he will decrease the loading time so drastically.

I doubt because Anti Aliasing can already be turned off in XnView.

Icfu

[Lesmo16]

Just to show, that I hadn't compared apples with pears ...

331 JPEGs, average 2,2MB, empty cache,
on PIII 700 with 512MB SD-RAM

cPicture:
size: 80 x 80 (no change possible)
no resampling (no change possible)
= 5 seconds

IrfanView thumbnail options:
size: 80 x 80
"Use Resample instead of Resize ...": unchecked
all other thumbnail options unchecked too
= 75 seconds

XnView thumbnail options:
size: 80 x 80
Thumbnail - Use high quality: unchecked
without cache from: C:\Programme\XnView\cache\
= 73 seconds

[icfu]

You had activated the thumbnail preview mode in cPicture? Alt-8?
I thought cPicture was fast at first in normal viewing mode with that preview bar on top but in this mode the thumbs are not loaded completely.

Is there any special information in those jpgs that only cPicture can read, maybe a thumbnail pic for future access? Otherwise I have no idea anymore, those results just sound too strange for me.

Some more people should run a test, we have enough forum members.

Icfu