PicaJet Forum has been moved to daminion.net/forum!
PicaJet User Forum Forum Index PicaJet User Forum
PicaJet - Digital Photo Management Software
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What about Picajet v3.0 ?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PicaJet User Forum Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Nicolas Kersalé



Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Nantes, France

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:50 pm    Post subject: What about Picajet v3.0 ? Reply with quote

Hi Alex, Hi Wizard,

do you have any idea of the date of release of the v3.0 of Picajet ?

could you give us some informations about the added / improved features in v3.0 ?

thanks in advance

Nicolas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martin10018



Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any news on this, Alex?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duckznutz



Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to know as well . .I check in here every week to see if its been announced . . clearer thumbnails are what I am waiting on before buying . .. I am surprised no-one on here really mentions how blurry they are!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carlos



Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

duckznutz wrote:
I would like to know as well . .I check in here every week to see if its been announced . . clearer thumbnails are what I am waiting on before buying . .. I am surprised no-one on here really mentions how blurry they are!


Blurry thumbnails?

Here they are perfect!

Check "Options>Import>Generate thumbnails using resample filter".

When a file has just been added a temporary thumbnail is created, then just scroll and the high quality thumbnail is created...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lanmat



Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd love to get a sneak peek of what's coming out in the next release as well!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martin10018



Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

martin10018 wrote:
Any news on this, Alex?

No answer is an answer too. Buying PicaJet was a waste of money. It has still too many bugs to make it useable for me. So I will stop waiting and buy another product instead (idImager - the suport is great).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex
PicaJet Team


Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually I dont know exact term. In fact PicaJet v 3 will be developed anew. Probably we'll released couple of auxiliary tools for PicaJet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
martin10018



Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alex wrote:
Actually I dont know exact term. In fact PicaJet v 3 will be developed anew. Probably we'll released couple of auxiliary tools for PicaJet.


Does this mean work on 3.0 hasn't even started yet? What about fixing the bugs in the existing version then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex
PicaJet Team


Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

martin10018 wrote:

Does this mean work on 3.0 hasn't even started yet?


No. We've start work.

martin10018 wrote:

What about fixing the bugs in the existing version then?


We shall release updates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kasper_dk



Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 35
Location: Denmark

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:36 am    Post subject: So where are we now? No posts on this subject since March?! Reply with quote

In almost all post in this forum it sounds like all things will be fixed in version 3 - that's great! But how long in the future are we looking? 1 month? 3 months? half a year? several years?

And also, I was told that the "watched folders" issue discussed many other places in the forum would be fixed in the build to follow 453 (where it still doesn't work) - when can we expect this update?

Give us some guidelines please Confused


Regards
/Kasper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MoS



Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:25 pm    Post subject: <Bump> Reply with quote

<Raises his hand>

I too would like to have an idea (guestimate) of when to expect the next version of Picajet. Also, I'd love to hear about what that next version will include.

It goes without saying that I'd like a new version to upgrade to ASAP. But more importantly, I'd like the next version to include non-destructive (lossless) editing of photos similar to the way Picasa stores all modifications in a text file.

Yes, Picajet can do that as well...but only for basic mods (rotation, cropping, brightness). The more advance modifications available in "Fix Image" require that a backup be made of the original picture.

The reason why I'm pestering the development team for a timeframe is because I'd like to start optimizing/enhancing my photo library but I don't like the idea of having a duplicate of each photo I enhance (just so I can go back to the original later) and even less the idea of having to do it all over again when Picajet gets upgraded with non-destructive editing (or when I bite the bullet and switch to an alternative like Picasa, whichever occurs first).

Any input/feedback would be much appreciated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wizard
PicaJet Team


Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Posts: 296

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:09 am    Post subject: Re: <Bump> Reply with quote

MoS wrote:
<Raises his hand>

I too would like to have an idea (guestimate) of when to expect the next version of Picajet. Also, I'd love to hear about what that next version will include.

It goes without saying that I'd like a new version to upgrade to ASAP. But more importantly, I'd like the next version to include non-destructive (lossless) editing of photos similar to the way Picasa stores all modifications in a text file.

Yes, Picajet can do that as well...but only for basic mods (rotation, cropping, brightness). The more advance modifications available in "Fix Image" require that a backup be made of the original picture.

The reason why I'm pestering the development team for a timeframe is because I'd like to start optimizing/enhancing my photo library but I don't like the idea of having a duplicate of each photo I enhance (just so I can go back to the original later) and even less the idea of having to do it all over again when Picajet gets upgraded with non-destructive editing (or when I bite the bullet and switch to an alternative like Picasa, whichever occurs first).

Any input/feedback would be much appreciated.


Non-destructive image editing feature will be removed from the next PicaJet version. Although "on-the-fly" editing feature allows you to leave original file "as is" it's not the better way to edit images. Because all your image changes will be visible from PicaJet only. If you located the photo from Explorer or like to see third-party viewer/editor you can't be able to see the images changes. In case of PicaJet problems you will lost all your adjustments (except if they will be stored on XMP of course)

Another way to keep an original file is using image versions. By another words you will have two version of the same file managed by PicaJet and seeing as a single file. HDD space is not expensive now, and it price per GB dropping down every day: ~ 0.2-2 $ per GB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MoS



Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:36 pm    Post subject: Re-Re: <Bump> Reply with quote

Quote:
Non-destructive image editing feature will be removed from the next PicaJet version. Although "on-the-fly" editing feature allows you to leave original file "as is" it's not the better way to edit images. Because all your image changes will be visible from PicaJet only. If you located the photo from Explorer or like to see third-party viewer/editor you can't be able to see the images changes. In case of PicaJet problems you will lost all your adjustments (except if they will be stored on XMP of course)

Another way to keep an original file is using image versions. By another words you will have two version of the same file managed by PicaJet and seeing as a single file. HDD space is not expensive now, and it price per GB dropping down every day: ~ 0.2-2 $ per GB.


First of all Wizard, thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply. The development team's receptiveness to its customers' feedback was why I purchased PJ FX within one week of trying it out. That and PJ is a kick-ass app.

Alright, with the obligatory ass-kissing out of the way *LOL*, I understand your point about "on-the-fly" editing only being viewable through PJ. However, as it is now, PJ supports "on-the-fly" editing through its QuickEdit feature. I personally love using PJ as my viewer, but should someone prefer using a third-party app, they could easily just select the photos that have been through QuickEdit and choose "Apply QuickEdit" to see their modifications in said third-party app. This can be done very efficiently because you guys have implemented a robust search function that can not only locate edited photos but also specific mods (rotation, crop, flip, etc).

If you'll bare with me, here's why I believe this "on-the-fly" approach is preferable for my needs (and for most PJ users, I hope).

1) I assume that most using PJ for editing do so because of its simplicity (otherwise they would use Photoshop or something equally powerful/intimidating). Having said that, if those people are anything like me, they are constantly learning & experimenting with photo editing. Had I permanently applied editing changes every time I learnt something new, my photos would now be just a blur of amateurish "enhancements". For example, initially I primarily used brightness/contrast, but now I've moved up in sophistication to gamma, highlights, shadows, saturation, color balance and starting to wrap my brain around Golden Mean for cropping. The point is "on-the-fly" editing might be better suited to the proficiency of your user base (i.e. save them from themselves).

2) Despite the cost of storage constantly dropping, why not preserve as much as possible until its use is "really" necessary? Price of storage drops, but size of files increases (I remember whem my 4MP camera was considered state of the art). Let's not forget that as SD cards get cheaper, we all are getting more trigger happy with the digicam. In fact, that's probably why we're here using PJ to keep track of the hundreds/thousands of smiling faces.

3) If QuickEdit (on-the-fly editing) is maintained/enhanced, it allows users to search and filter their photos based on what mods they've made to them as well as which ones haven't yet been enhanced. Permanently saving changes won't allow for that kind of filtering.

4) If users want the benefit of seeing their enhancements in third-party viewers/editors they can apply QuickEdit or perhaps select an export command which could bring up a simple dialog box allowing them to select the output format, quality, with or without QuickEdits, size, etc. This dialog box would be similar to the one for "Write info to files (EXIF/IPTC)..." with its "Customize" checkbox allowing for more advance options. In this way, they can safely backup their changes in case PJ runs into problems and loses their mods (like you mentioned). And, of course, users can always backup their albums via the "Backup" function in "Manage Albums..." or use the "Export as XML" feature.

5) On-the-fly editing is better for tweaking by trial-and-error. For example, printing photos can be very hit-or-miss. You meticulously optimize your photos till they look perfect on your screen only to find out that once printed they don't look quite as good. Maybe it's too bright when printed or the white balance is off, whatever. Let's just say it's close to being perfect aside from some minor flaw. You now (without on-the-fly) have to revert back to the original (if you don't want to lose quality), make the same adjustments as accurately as you remember them and finally make the correction whereas you could directly make the correction with on-the-fly.

Anyhow, those are just some of the benefits I can come up with off the top of my head. I don't mean to sound so critical or long-winded. I simply feel that PJ is a killer app that only needs a few tweaks to seamlessly integrate itself into my workflow on so many levels.

Obviously, I think you should migrate the "Fix Image..." functionality to "QuickEdit" rather than the other way around. But should you decide to go ahead and phase out QuickEdit's non-destructive editing in favor of backups of originals, could you then allow the user to select a "Backup" folder for the originals? Like you said, some people want to view their modified photos in a third-party app. However, as it is, the underlying directory structure becomes cluttered with backups that primarily serve archival purposes only. (Of course with a single directory for all backups, some sort of collision scheme for filenames would have to be devised, but I assume that's a trivial matter.)

Thanks for reading through this humble customer's suggestions. Perhaps I should have sent this long reply via email. Please feel free to email me if you'd like to engage in an open discussion of what other minor changes might best propel PJ to being the industry standard for photo management that I think it deserves to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wizard
PicaJet Team


Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Posts: 296

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:16 am    Post subject: Re: Re-Re: <Bump> Reply with quote

Thanks for so comprehensive quick-edit feedback. We need some thoughts about this feature and how it will be mix with Version Control system.

MoS wrote:

1) I assume that most using PJ for editing do so because of its simplicity (otherwise they would use Photoshop or something equally powerful/intimidating). Having said that, if those people are anything like me, they are constantly learning & experimenting with photo editing. Had I permanently applied editing changes every time I learnt something new, my photos would now be just a blur of amateurish "enhancements". For example, initially I primarily used brightness/contrast, but now I've moved up in sophistication to gamma, highlights, shadows, saturation, color balance and starting to wrap my brain around Golden Mean for cropping. The point is "on-the-fly" editing might be better suited to the proficiency of your user base (i.e. save them from themselves).


In current version "on-the-fly" effects supported by OpenGL engine which is fast because of hardware acceleration. We'll remove OpenGL supports from the next version because of the let down OpenGL by Microsoft with their suportslow deafult windows GL drivers.


Quote:

2) Despite the cost of storage constantly dropping, why not preserve as much as possible until its use is "really" necessary? Price of storage drops, but size of files increases (I remember whem my 4MP camera was considered state of the art). Let's not forget that as SD cards get cheaper, we all are getting more trigger happy with the digicam. In fact, that's probably why we're here using PJ to keep track of the hundreds/thousands of smiling faces.


HD capacity will grow but cameras megapixels will сame to finish Smile The new semi-professional Canon 30D has just 8MP, but it's not mean that it's a bad camera.


Quote:

3) If QuickEdit (on-the-fly editing) is maintained/enhanced, it allows users to search and filter their photos based on what mods they've made to them as well as which ones haven't yet been enhanced. Permanently saving changes won't allow for that kind of filtering.


Version control also will have support for searching: you can search for assets which not have "Print" version for example or don't have "Editing" version.

Quote:

4) If users want the benefit of seeing their enhancements in third-party viewers/editors they can apply QuickEdit or perhaps select an export command which could bring up a simple dialog box allowing them to select the output format, quality, with or without QuickEdits, size, etc. This dialog box would be similar to the one for "Write info to files (EXIF/IPTC)..." with its "Customize" checkbox allowing for more advance options. In this way, they can safely backup their changes in case PJ runs into problems and loses their mods (like you mentioned). And, of course, users can always backup their albums via the "Backup" function in "Manage Albums..." or use the "Export as XML" feature.


In this case a user can replace accidentally the original version. Plus it's required additional efforts each time you need to drag the photo from Explorer to a destination folder.
Images should have the ability to store the image adjusting options directly into the XMP. XMP format currently supports for a little amount of formats (JPEG, DNG, TIFF, PDF, EPS...). I am against of litterring a disc with additional small files.



Quote:

5) On-the-fly editing is better for tweaking by trial-and-error. For example, printing photos can be very hit-or-miss. You meticulously optimize your photos till they look perfect on your screen only to find out that once printed they don't look quite as good. Maybe it's too bright when printed or the white balance is off, whatever. Let's just say it's close to being perfect aside from some minor flaw. You now (without on-the-fly) have to revert back to the original (if you don't want to lose quality), make the same adjustments as accurately as you remember them and finally make the correction whereas you could directly make the correction with on-the-fly.


Print will have own gamma adjustment option. (Plus maybe bright + contrast option). You can also create a special version of images for print.
The example version structure might consist:
1. Original File (RAW for example)
2. Derrivative file (DNG with stored camera RAW settings)
3. Version for Print,
4. Verson for Web.

I understand that version control suited for professionals and average user might not be interested with version control.

Quote:

Anyhow, those are just some of the benefits I can come up with off the top of my head. I don't mean to sound so critical or long-winded. I simply feel that PJ is a killer app that only needs a few tweaks to seamlessly integrate itself into my workflow on so many levels.

Obviously, I think you should migrate the "Fix Image..." functionality to "QuickEdit" rather than the other way around. But should you decide to go ahead and phase out QuickEdit's non-destructive editing in favor of backups of originals, could you then allow the user to select a "Backup" folder for the originals? Like you said, some people want to view their modified photos in a third-party app. However, as it is, the underlying directory structure becomes cluttered with backups that primarily serve archival purposes only. (Of course with a single directory for all backups, some sort of collision scheme for filenames would have to be devised, but I assume that's a trivial matter.)

Thanks for reading through this humble customer's suggestions. Perhaps I should have sent this long reply via email. Please feel free to email me if you'd like to engage in an open discussion of what other minor changes might best propel PJ to being the industry standard for photo management that I think it deserves to be.


Thanks in anyway. We consider the possibility to mix QuickEdit feature with Version Control system. Slow handling of multiple effects on the fly - one of the major problem to prevent from implementing this feature.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MoS



Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:55 pm    Post subject: Me blabbing again Reply with quote

Again Wizard, I must thank you for taking the time to consider my suggestions/concerns and for addressing them so thoroughly.

Quote:
In current version "on-the-fly" effects supported by OpenGL engine which is fast because of hardware acceleration. We'll remove OpenGL supports from the next version because of the let down OpenGL by Microsoft with their suportslow deafult windows GL drivers.


I can certainly understand why you would drop such effects if Microsoft's support of OpenGL makes rendering them impossibly slow. I guess something like Core Image and Core Video offered by the Mac OS X graphics layer, Quartz, would be useful here...but I digress.

Is using Microsoft's Direct3D out of the question? I heard that Vista's graphics layer will be significantly faster and more powerful. Moreover, Vista is supposed to natively support OpenGL (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3760).

Quote:
HD capacity will grow but cameras megapixels will came to finish. The new semi-professional Canon 30D has just 8MP, but it's not mean that it's a bad camera.


I definitely see your point. I know I make it sound like I'm running low on drive space. Truth is, I have almost 400GB of drive space and a good portion of it is available (I'm just very stingy with my use of HD space). Nonetheless, I've just started to build my photo library and it's already 5GB (with no backups, just originals). I'm sure others here have libraries that are many times larger.

If you maintain a backup of each original and one edited/enhanced version, your library's size increases 2-fold. And if you start creating different versions (which I hear the next PJ will have, awesome) for print or web or other, then your library size jumps 3-4 fold.

I realize there are some built-in assumptions in my argument:
a) Not every photo in a library will be edited/enhanced
b) Those with RAW originals will have versions that are significantly smaller than the original.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't consider a size increase of 2-fold negligible. I just feel that having an original and then storing various "pointers" to it with an "array" of effects for each pointer is a far more efficient & elegant solution. This is especially true when versioning is considered. I imagine it like this:
1) You have the original
2) You have a pointer/shortcut to it (let's call it PrintVersion)
3) That PrintVersion shortcut has a list of effects associated to it (e.g. crop 4x6, increase brightness, etc.)
Allow the user to create as many shortcuts as he/she wants and all of a sudden you now have versioning with:
- almost no increase to the library size
- no risk of quality degradation
- easy undo/tweaking
- and one happy customer who will finally stop nagging you about this *LOL*
Here's one way such a feature could be used: http://www.studioline.net/EN/products/sl-photo/examples/copy-image/default.htm

Of course all of this depends on whether you can work around Microsoft's poor support of OpenGL. There's no point in having on-the-fly editing if it makes PJ so slow that it isn't pleasant to work with. I'm just hoping it can be done since Picasa's implementation of this feature is lightning-fast. By the way, I apologize if linking to and mentioning competitors is in poor taste. Just for the record though, I have both Picasa and StudioLine, and still I don't use them because I have PJ. I could tell you why, but that's an entirely different post Wink

Quote:
Version control also will have support for searching: you can search for assets which not have "Print" version for example or don't have "Editing" version.


<nods and agrees>
I didn't find anything to ramble on about with this one

Quote:
In this case a user can replace accidentally the original version. Plus it's required additional efforts each time you need to drag the photo from Explorer to a destination folder. Images should have the ability to store the image adjusting options directly into the XMP. XMP format currently supports for a little amount of formats (JPEG, DNG, TIFF, PDF, EPS...). I am against of litterring a disc with additional small files.


If XMP supports enough editing/postprocessing functions and if PJ can write that kind of XMP metadata, I have no problems with that whatsoever. I'm just looking for a way to edit photos without losing the original and without the need to store a backup of the original. Sounds like XMP editng metadata might be the silver bullet.

Quote:
Print will have own gamma adjustment option. (Plus maybe bright + contrast option). You can also create a special version of images for print.
The example version structure might consist:
1. Original File (RAW for example)
2. Derrivative file (DNG with stored camera RAW settings)
3. Version for Print,
4. Verson for Web.

I understand that version control suited for professionals and average user might not be interested with version control.


In that structure, the library would double in size (or at least significantly increase in size). But I've talked about that too much already Wink Also, the disc would be littered with addtional files (derivative file, version for Print, version for Web). And then there's the issue with tweaking. I'll use the example version structure you proposed above.
1) I have my original (RAW for example)
2) I create a derivative file (DNG with stored camera RAW settings)
3) I create a version for Print (let's say JPEG since most stores will print that format and it's compressed)
4) I print it, it's perfect except for some minor flaws
5) I either have to modify the print version and suffer further degradation (though that might be negligible)
6) Or I restore the original and go through the tedious task of re-modifying the original for print

Quote:
Thanks in anyway. We consider the possibility to mix QuickEdit feature with Version Control system. Slow handling of multiple effects on the fly - one of the major problem to prevent from implementing this feature.


You're very welcome. I'm already content with PJ, just wanted to offer my 2 cents. I'm confident you have your customers' best interest at heart and will do whatever you can to balance their desires and what is feasible. I have no doubt that the handling of multiple effects on-the-fly is the major hurdle here and so I leave it in your very capable hands.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PicaJet User Forum Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group