New Phoenix build (2.3.59)

[jorton]

So I was messing around and came up with the three following files for your comparison.

1. JPG fanart downloaded to the main fanart folder on my server.
2. Old 1920 cached fanart "PNG" image from a 2.58 Phoenix API client.
3. New 1920 cached fanart "JPG" image from a 2.59 Phoenix API client.

From what I can see the orginal fanart is a JPG that was downloaded as a 1920x1080 "JPG" with a file size of 388KB. Then using the old API it was converted to a 1920x1080 "PNG" with a file size of 2.07MB. The using the new API it was converted to a 1920x1080 "JPG" with a file size of 288KB using the 0.82 compression setting that Stuckless mentioned by default.

See images linked,

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8067076/Fana.../Fanart_DL.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8067076/Fana...920_Cached.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8067076/Fana...920_Cached.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8067076/Fana...Cached_100.jpg

[routerunner]

Originally Posted by jorton

So I was messing around and came up with the three following files for your comparison.

1. JPG fanart downloaded to the main fanart folder on my server.
2. Old 1920 cached fanart "PNG" image from a 2.58 Phoenix API client.
3. New 1920 cached fanart "JPG" image from a 2.59 Phoenix API client.

From what I can see the orginal fanart is a JPG that was downloaded as a 1920x1080 "JPG" with a file size of 388KB. Then using the old API it was converted to a 1920x1080 "PNG" with a file size of 2.07MB. The using the new API it was converted to a 1920x1080 "JPG" with a file size of 288KB using the 0.82 compression setting that Stuckless mentioned by default.

See images linked,

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8067076/Fana.../Fanart_DL.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8067076/Fana...920_Cached.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8067076/Fana...920_Cached.jpg

Thank you for taking the time to do the comparison...would it be possible for you to produce a fourth file with a 1.0 setting, pretty please ?
Is Diamond/Gemstone using the same Phoenix core? if so people should notice instant improvement on extenders.

I'm going to play with this at some point and make a new script to completely cache into RamDisk for ultimate performances.

Eddy

[jorton]

Added a link to a Cached JPG image at 1.0 (100) for comparison.

The 1.0 JPG is 812KB, still pretty large and really hard to tell the difference between them watching a slide show of the whole set. Then remember we all watch on HDTV's and projectors, probably won't be able to really see a difference.

See this post,

http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/show...9&postcount=21

[routerunner]

Originally Posted by jorton

Added a link to a Cached JPG image at 1.0 (100) for comparison.

The 1.0 JPG is 812KB, still pretty large and really hard to tell the difference between them watching a slide show of the whole set. Then remember we all watch on HDTV's and projectors, probably won't be able to really see a difference.

See this post,

http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/show...9&postcount=21

Again, thank you very much for that.

I was expecting the quite big file size at 1.0 (100 quality) as this is not normally recommended, in fact a max value of 90 is typical (or 0.9), so the default of 0.82 is going to be good in most of the cases.

Still, I rather prefer a copy "as-is" being implemented to avoid the fanart being decoded (probably to 24bpp RGB in RAM) before being re-encoded to the cache. I know that the CPU power required on the server is more than enough to perform the decode/encode, but IMHO not necessary.

Also there are users that switch off their server overnight and keep the cache in volatile memory for performance reason and therefore they need to recreate the cache every day, so any help to reduce the time it takes to generate the cache is more than welcome .

Eddy