On 25/10/2015 23:48, Anton Lundin wrote:
One idea i got for not bloating the git repo, is actually chucking the pictures in a separate git branch, completely separate from our "dive-data" branch. We could even put thumbs in another branch. That way we could choose if we would like to just download the dive-data, thumbs, or even full pictures, just by keeping them in separate lines of history. Example is that you only like your dive-data on your cell, but dive-data + medium resoulution thumbs on your tablet, meanwhile you got your dive-data and highres on your laptop. Another direction to go is to use https://git-annex.branchable.com/ //Anton
Once images are stored remotely, the thumbnails become much more important. What were your ideas about thumbnails? I have been looking at some of my images, and if these are stored remotely, then a "thumbnail" size of around 500 x 300 px gives sufficient detail to see what is important and to decide whether to download the remote image or not. I have been crunching the images from 20 mb raw to around 16 kb jpeg images (500 x 300 px) using a huge compression factor. But, the question is: is 16 kb per image small enough? Even with this size, a collection of several (tens of) thousand photographs would bloat the dive log significantly. What thumbnail size would be small enough to keep on-line permanently? Maybe a user-specified preference? Now, Subsurface works with three image sizes: thumbnail-on-profile, enlarged thumbnail and full-sized image. Maybe a useful approach would be to use the enlarged thumbnail and generate the thumbnails-on-profile on the fly, using the enlarged thumbnails? This would provide maximum independence on the remote collection. In this respect Anton's proposal above makes sense to keep the images and thumbnails separately.
Kind regards, willem _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
