Talk:Comparison of image viewers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Viewing inside archives

Should we add information about the ability to view images inside archives? I know ACDSee let's you see inside ZIP files at least. It'd be especially nice to know which programs let you view inside RARs/CBRs/CBZs.

What's the point? This is comparison of image viewers, not universal-programs-for-doing-anything. Futurix 16:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be for viewing images inside the archives, without needing to extract them. Look at CDisplay, for example, "a sequential image viewing utility".

[edit] Eliminate Some Programs

I know of at least 2 programs that are image organisers, not image viewers. There is a huge difference between the two. Image organisers organise your files and image viewers do nothing but view single or lists of images. However, since image organisers need to rapidly scroll through thousands of images, often, their support of image formats is not as through as image viewers. The problem here is apparently the same as over at comparison of media players that treats a orgianzier the same as a player. Again, two different things.--Ctachme 15:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain the (huge) difference between an image organizer and an image viewer. At least in a way that specifies the applications in this list as being mere viewers. Almost all applications mentioned do more than viewing single or lists of files. Acdsee, for example, is called a photo manager by it's publisher. The amount of file formats supported? Both Acdsee and ThumbsPlus support around 100 file formats. Surely storing information in a central database is something for an image organizer? Acdsee does this too. I don't think you can talk about any difference between the two application types. Most applications provide both image viewing and image organizing features. Or should applications that can edit images also be removed, because they are image editors not image viewers? — Peter 15:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alt text

The images in the table on this page have blank alt text - please can someone replace it with something more meaningful? Thank you.. Andy Mabbett 11:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. :-D badmonkey 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context menu viewing

It'd be great to list if any of these offer context-menu viewing, such as (the now-defunct) Picaview from ACDSystems. There are some viewers out there that do it, but I haven't run into any that work as well as Picaview. Picaview stopped working with Windows XP SP2 and ACD has no intentions of fixing it or continuing the package.

[edit] huh?

What is the meaning of the bull's heads, and why don't I know? Is it common knowledge? Is it assumed I should know? Do these various programs cost a bull's head?

It is a Rams head and should be deleted as someone has put the gnu project icon in the table for a laugh, I will try but am at work and this isp is sometimes odd.

GNU represents Free Software. Ojw 12:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It should be marked as $0 too - the fact that it is open source does not say anything about the price. Futurix 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In this case the label of the column should be changed rather than removing the licensing information, which e.g. tells me whether I can expect the software packaged with my Linux distribution or not. --Markus Krötzsch 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icons

Why KDE and GNOME have icons, but Windows and Macs have only letter? Futurix 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it was decided at one point that the Windows and Mac icons were an inappropriate use of copyrighted logos. However, this page would be much more user-friendly if the icons returned. If people don't like that Microsoft's and Apple's logos are copyrighted, perhaps Wikipedia could make free clones of them. Theshibboleth 18:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adobe Bridge

Adobe Bridge is not free, it is part of commercial software bundles from Adobe and you cannot get it for free. Futurix 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much stuff

Should all image viewers of all times be listed in the articles or those at least with some popularity? Check: CocoViewX, CPC View, Elgorithms MagicTracer, ExifPro Image Viewer, EyeBrowse, F-Spot, GQView, GraphicConverter, Gwenview, Image Browser Arctic, IMatch, imgSeek, P3dO, Shell Picture, ShowImg, Vallen JPegger, VeriPic, ViewIt - all are virtually unknown. Futurix 10:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this article probably isn't to determine which viewers are popular, and we open a can of worms if we try. If someone felt strongly enough about a viewer to add it, then it should probably remain there until it is no longer supported or usable (In other words, if someone tests and shows that it no longer works on any modern platforms from the last 10 years). User:Kjr99044 2006-10-04 03:00:51
This is very bad criteria - I'm quite sure that at least 50% of image viewers here are virtually unknown and use Wikipedia for promotion of their software (which is against Wikipedia rules).
And please, do not split my comments in the future. It is confusing readers. Futurix 10:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is the purpose of "File Formats" and "View Functionality (detail)" tables? Why do they cover only 2-4 of the viewers in the list? Futurix 10:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Only 2-4 viewers have been added because the person adding those tables didn't know enough about the other viewers listed to put the necessary information there. Their addition was justifiable because the first table has a crowded list of features for each viewer, which does not give a quick visual overview of features available to the viewer. A table makes it easier to distinguish which elements a viewer is good at. User:Kjr99044 2006-10-04 03:00:51
Most information from those tables can be merged into main table (most of it already there!). Futurix 10:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, I suggest to unify all GNOME and KDE image viewers together - otherwise there are too much of the same thing in the list. Futurix 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong object to unifying the KDE and GNOME viewers. Saying that those completely different programs would be the same or even vaguely similar is completely unfounded, which I assume you can tell yourself by just looking at their descriptions. Moreover, "unknown by you" is different from "virtually unnknown". Gwenview, for example, is the standard viewer for the Kubuntu distribution which is rather popular at the moment.
Other than this, I agree with the objections. The table is mostly useless for comparing features, and the date of the latest release would often be more telling than a list of functions. Also, most image viewers support every format that most people ever encounter, and converting between formats can be done with other graphic tools anyway. --Markus Krötzsch 15:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Picture and Fax Viewer?

Should the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer be included here? The Wikipedia article for that page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Picture_and_Fax_Viewer) links to this one, so I expected it to be here. So I was surprised when I didn't see it. It seems to me that it should since it is so commonly used by those on the Windows platform.

I just added WP&FV to most of the tables on this page (it didn't seem necessary to add it to the "supported platforms" table). If any of the information here is incorrect, then please update the page. — EagleOne\Talk 15:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Licenses

This page should contain information about licenses of the software. Guaka 06:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] softpedia

http://www.softpedia.com/catList/74,1,1,1.html

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Graphic-Viewers

--83.176.120.108 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And? Futurix 08:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what about

Officially the Mac OS X Finder and Windows Explorer have image viewing capability, they're just not very good at it. However that would mean adding Mac OS X software like PathFinder which is more like a Finder replacement. As for items I would actually like to add in, are non-apps such as QuickImage and PicturePopPro allowed in? They are invoked by a contextual menu. What about Digital Asset Managers like Cumulus and Portfolio? Shouldn't there be a link to them from this article?

As for the earlier comment about pruning the list, no I haven't heard of any of those besides GraphicConverter which has been around for a long time on the Mac, but that's why I search on Wikipedia... to find out about things I don't know. Connectionfailure 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Organizing

People come to this article for help with image organizing. If this article is not going to help them, there needs to be another article that will, prominently linked from here. If this article is going to help them, it needs to clearly address what features are helpful for image organizing, and what software offers such features, in what forms. Right now it just a sea of tech gobbledy-gook useless except to those who already are very knowledgeable. The article is currently completely devoid of any external links to helpful relevant resources. 69.87.200.158 14:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Name Column with URL Column

How about merging the "Name" column and the "URL" column into a "Name (URL)"? It doesn't look good to have an entire column with square-bracketed numerals. 3Laws 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Way too wide tables

I could barely print the information in there. Only through rescaling the page and printing it with real small fonts. Can you do some reorganising? I mean probably having the link to the home page isn't that relevant to the overview and can be taken out of the table and put at the end. Also other pieces of information can be restructured. Even for viewing is painfull to scroll horizontaly just to check some info. 89.34.24.20

[edit] FreeVimager

I've started an article about FreeVimager. Far as I know It's the only image viewer that has pretty good multi-mon support, I think a multi-mon column and FreeVimager, both should be included in the Comparison of image viewers.

Thanks —IncidentFlux 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unicode/support

What about creating "Unicode Support" column? Some users that work internationally or share photos with people from around world would definitely want to know if the browser supports unicode. A lot of times browsers will say error opening file:"N:\photos\????\???dsc01.jpg" This happens alot with Czech filenames or East Asian (C/J/K and/or SEA) filenames on an English/American computer. Renaming the file usually changes a lot of the information about the file if there is no metadata on that file or available for that format.

Thanks.

[edit] CMYK jpgs

The streams embedded in pdfs are sometimes jpgs (/DCTDecode) that can be extracted by hand into a file and viewed. But they are not always RGB; they may be /DeviceCMYK -- 4 bytes per pixel instead of 3? Which image viewers can properly handle CMYK jpgs? Irfanview sort-of recognizes the file type but shows false color, and then saves as a wrong RGB. Image Analyzer says it can handle CMYK, but does not seem to do it by default -- maybe with the ImageFileLib plugin? -69.87.199.97 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supported file types is misleading

The supported file types section is misleading. Because lots of image types have a lot of sub-types. I have several BMPs and TGAs, for instance, that most viewers that support those types do not handle correctly, even though those images are perfectly valid. And I am not even talking about TIFs yet, because TIFs have "millions" of sub-types and most viewers don't support a lot of those... wjmt (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bsd daemon.jpg

The image Image:Bsd daemon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't see how use here would be acceptable and have rm'd the image from this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)