just my 2 cents

Hello cthumb developers,
I sent this message 11 days ago, and thought it was correctly
delivered, since it retuned back to me from "cthumb-devel@...".
Today I found an X-Spam-Report header in that mail, complaining about
HTML code in the message (obviously this isn't true, I hate
html-based mail ;))) and other things, like an attached diff (this
was true). Checked the on-line list archives, I can't see this mail,
so here it is again. Sorry if you receive it twice.

I have removed the attached file, you can get it at
http://iglu.cc.uniud.it/~piccia/cthumb.diff

===================================================================
Christian Maegaard ha scritto:

[...]
> >But these are quite useless, if a user specifies InsertExif he wants info about
> >the camera settings and so on, not info about the file.
> I always use the InsertExif with the UseMogrify option (requires 
> ImageMagick to be installed). Using that option, the exif data will be 
> preserved even in the scaled down versions. As you point out later, 

that's cool, thank you for the advice ;)

>>* about the time displayed with DisplayFileDate. If the InsertExif option is
>>used, cthumb displays the time and date taken from the exif info, otherwise
>>it uses the mtime of the file. Personally I don't like this, the exif time
>>and the file time are two totally different concepts, so they sholudn't be
>>confused. For example if I rotate a picture with jpegtran (great tool!) the
>>file time changes, but the exif time doesn't. It would be nice if the user
>>could choose if the displayed time is the one taken from the file info or
>>from the exif info. In the second case, it should be displayed the exif 
>>time even if the user specifies InsertExif=0 ("I don't want full exif
>>informations, but I want the exif time"... this isn't possible with the
>>current version of cthumb).
> Certainly a nice to have to differentiate between exif time and file 
> time. When browsing a photo album though, I would personally always 
> prefer the time of the photo (.i.e. the exif time).

I prefer it too, and this is what I was talking about (I'm sorry if
it wasn't too clear). I would like to have the exif time even if I
don't want the full exif info. This is because exif infos are
generally only relevant to me, not to other people who just want to
look at the photo album. They are only interested in the photo (exif)
time.

Cthumb could always get the time&date using jhead (if the picture
doesn't have an exif header, jhead returns the file time&date, so
it isn't a problem if the exif info are not present).
This way, InsertExif=1 should only switch on/off the display of FULL
exif informations.
 
>>I now use this layout, from top to bottom:
>>-prev/up/next arrows (without album title)
>>-the picture
>>-the different resolutions links
>>-picture caption
>>-picture date and time
>>-story
>>-exif info
>> 
> This feature would be fantastic. I have wished for that for a long time, 
> but never got around to do it myself. Did you already implement this in 
> cthumb? If so, maybe you could send the patch to Carlos.

yes, it's quite simple to do since we just want to move down few
html lines. Here it is the patch for cthumb 4.2 (see attachment).



-- 
`cat ~/.mutt/signature`

NO ai brevetti sul software nella UE
http://swpat.ffii.org



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf