Large List of Bugfixes 2019-2023 (aka Legacy Large List of Suggestions and Requests for Photoline UI and Tools)

[PhilM]

Cinema 4D UI https://i.imgur.com/ZQG7Daw.jpg

The ONE idea I like in the various UI examples, is the way Cinema 4D does highlight the active tool, option buttons and tabs with very visible Orange back color.
Lot more visible than shades of grey.

Note : PL file browser uses orange highlighting.

Enjoy what is left of this year.

Phil

[shijan]

...

[shijan]

Icons like these don't works well at all. Even after 5 days of usage i still sometimes guess which sigh represents which parameter.

Icons have advantages and disadvantages.
The big advantage is, that they have the same size in all languages and they need less space.
We try to give every icon a tooltip, so if you don't know what it does, you can place the mouse on it and you can read it.

This is rather cosmetic than real problem but:
1. It is way simpler to see text near control than always hover icon to see tool tip text.
2. These icons provide inconstancy in UI, they feels like belong to other app.
3. All other tools except curves and Expose use text names.
4. Icons vs text have no any difference in vertical docked size layout
5. All fits well to compact horizontal layout docked to tab as well.
6. No problem with single floating window layout because (unlike photoshop) it could be adjusted to any size.
7. Icons are dead end if you need to add new sliders in future. 3 sliders with icons are more less usable, 4 sliders with icons produce questions, 6 sliders with icons are total disaster.

[shijan]

Just some quick sketches of simplification and unification:

[PhilM]

1. It is way simpler to see text near control than always hover icon to see tool tip text.
...

Hi,

This is just YOUR opinion.
As are many of your suggestions/requests.

Phil

[der_fotograf]

Ist hier niemand, der diesen ganzen Unsinn einfach mal abschalten kann?
Es ist absolut unerträglich für jeden ernsthaften PL Anwender.

Isn't there anyone here who can just turn off all this nonsense?
It's absolutely unbearable for every serious PL user.

[shijan]

der_fotograf, Sie verhalten sich wie ein hysterischer Troll, der von Adobe angeheuert wurde, um neue PL-Benutzer und Beta-Tester hier abzuschrecken.

Usability questions are always subjective. As i notice earlier, I just provide my personal feedback and fresh lookup. It's up to developers to accept those suggestions or not.

[Hoogo]

...As i notice earlier, I just provide my personal feedback and fresh lookup....

I agree and think that this a very good thing to do, and I appreciate that input.

Seems to me that you have a lot of experience with many different programs, so you've seen different solutions to common problems and have a feeling for the "usual" way to solve things. So everything you notice now and mention here, while you're new to the program, are hints where it is somehow "unusual" or less pretty than possible. Once you got used to PL you will hardly notice these tiny things anymore.

Just don't put too much work into it. It's nice when you enjoy creating some sketches, but don't be disappointed if they are not taken into account. The general appearance is a topic that is mentioned quite regularly by new users, and so are such suggestions.

[shijan]

...

[shijan]

...

[PhilM]

...As i notice earlier, I just provide my personal feedback and fresh lookup....

I agree and think that this a very good thing to do, and I appreciate that input.

Seems to me that you have a lot of experience with many different programs, so you've seen different solutions to common problems and have a feeling for the "usual" way to solve things. So everything you notice now and mention here, while you're new to the program, are hints where it is somehow "unusual" or less pretty than possible. Once you got used to PL you will hardly notice these tiny things anymore.

Just don't put too much work into it. It's nice when you enjoy creating some sketches, but don't be disappointed if they are not taken into account. The general appearance is a topic that is mentioned quite regularly by new users, and so are such suggestions.

Hi Hoogo,

I basically agree with you, but ...
It needs some synthesis and organization.
I have a hard time to read and evaluate 40+ posts in less than a week. With a mix of wishes, preferences, corrections, etc ...

I believe usability debate will last forever. And will never make all users satisfied.
Users also need stability. Let's avoid changes that bring marginal advantages.
Let's avoid adding options and cursors that will complicate UI some more, if they are useful only once in a while.

I would prefer discussing new features, rather than spend lengthy discussions about preferences.
What about frequency separation, focus stacking, image alignment, HDR stacking, etc ... just as an example.

Lastly, it is the developer's duty to keep all this coherent and in line with their vision.
I believe they did well so far. Even if think we are reaching limits in complexity with some of the features.

Image management is complex. Software is there to make it efficient. Not to make it more complex.

Very best regards and wishes for 2020.

Philippe

[shijan]

...

[shijan]

Request for option for Adjustment Layer tools to do all processing in 32 bit depth, even if image source is 8 or 16 bit. From my subjective tests up-converting document to 32 bit provides HUGE flexibility in color correction, but as side effect it 2x increases PLD file size and file saving time. Currently PLD file don't provide EXR-like compression optimized for 32 bit depth, so 32 bit file sizes are rather huge. It is always better to keep 16 bit source files in 16 bit PLD file, but do all processing in 32 bit depth. As real life example - DaVinci Resolve works exact like this (always process everything in 32 bit float internally and keeps source files untouched).
UPD. As suggested by Hoogo, It appears this option exists in Document mode (all Processing done in 32 bit but PLD file size keeps as 16 bit.) : "Try switching to document mode. Then you can assign the bit depth to the document, that should do."

Example of extreme color correction done in 16 vs 32 bit depth:

[Gerhard Huber]

Bug in remove object mode tool options:
4. If i switch back to already used lasso tool, button is stays selected and i can not turn it off anymore.

you can click inside your picture, and the button will no longer be selected. I will fix this.

[Hoogo]

Example of extreme color correction done in 16 vs 32 bit depth:

From a technical point of view, it's a thing of numbers outside 0..1 (32bit) or no numbers (other depths, clipping).
But it also means that "output levels" does not really restrict to the levels you selected! So I think it matters WHY you use the tool.
For your test you used input- and output-sliders, but I think in real live you will use only one of them

It is always better to keep 16 bit source files in 16 bit PLD file, but do all processing in 32 bit depth.

I'm not up to date to the latest processors, but imho calculations in 16 bit should still be faster when you have to process mbytes of data.
Try switching to document mode. Then you can assign the bit depth to the document, that should do.