Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Image browser fast enough for time lapse jpegs

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 7, 2005 2:32:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is there an image browser fast enough for time lapse jpegs? Irfanview
comes close but not quite, video creation makes huge files with lots of
compression. I just want to be able to display full screen at 1024x768
with a projector and no flicker. I actually saw a web page that did this
but maybe not full screen. Is it that demanding to load 100K jpegs that
quickly? ACD See doesn't work, thumbsplus, etc.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 4:42:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
>Is there an image browser fast enough for time lapse jpegs? Irfanview
>comes close but not quite, video creation makes huge files with lots
of
>compression. I just want to be able to display full screen at 1024x768

>with a projector and no flicker. I actually saw a web page that did
this
>but maybe not full screen. Is it that demanding to load 100K jpegs
that
>quickly?

Without using hardware graphics acceleration, it is that demanding.

>ACD See doesn't work, thumbsplus, etc.

ACDSee and others typically preload images into system RAM
so the flickering you see is more or less how long it takes
simply to push the raw image data over to the video card.

In contrast, an image viewer like GLiv uses OpenGL hardware
acceleration. It preloads the next image onto the video
card's video RAM. The result is absolutely perfect glitch-free
transitions from one image to the next. GLiv even does
smooth fading transitions, as well as smooth rotation and
zooming with hardware bilinear antialiasing and interpolation.
Very slick! Very smooth!

Unfortunately, GLiv is *nix only, and I'm betting you're
looking for Windows software. I'm sure there are equivalent
image viewers in Windows, but I'm just not personally familiar
with them.

Isaac Kuo
February 7, 2005 7:44:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Without using hardware graphics acceleration, it is that demanding.
>
>
>>ACD See doesn't work, thumbsplus, etc.
>
>
> ACDSee and others typically preload images into system RAM
> so the flickering you see is more or less how long it takes
> simply to push the raw image data over to the video card.
>
> In contrast, an image viewer like GLiv uses OpenGL hardware
> acceleration. It preloads the next image onto the video
> card's video RAM. The result is absolutely perfect glitch-free
> transitions from one image to the next. GLiv even does
> smooth fading transitions, as well as smooth rotation and
> zooming with hardware bilinear antialiasing and interpolation.
> Very slick! Very smooth!
>
> Unfortunately, GLiv is *nix only, and I'm betting you're
> looking for Windows software. I'm sure there are equivalent
> image viewers in Windows, but I'm just not personally familiar
> with them.


Thanks for the hint. I looked up a bunch of OpenGL screen savers & such
on the web but couldn't find a simple browser that went fast enough for
video simulation. Prowshow Gold is similar to the free windows video
editor (but better) but also doesn't seem to do full screen preview. I
made a 100mb 1024x768 with JPGVideo but it's compressed and not real
smooth. Prowshow added a fade transition between frames that was nice.
The web site program 'gallery' also made transitions and would go as
fast as the computer was able I think once the images were downloaded,
maybe wouldn't work at larger sizes & a bother to install with apache,
php, etc. I think that just ran a javascript thingy.

Those smooth transitions seem to be an openGL thing as well. There must
be a simple image browser with that ability.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 10:25:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Is there an image browser fast enough for time lapse jpegs? Irfanview
> comes close but not quite, video creation makes huge files with lots
> of compression. I just want to be able to display full screen at
> 1024x768 with a projector and no flicker. I actually saw a web page
> that did this but maybe not full screen. Is it that demanding to load
> 100K jpegs that quickly? ACD See doesn't work, thumbsplus, etc.

I've had Moonsoft's Multimedia Xplorer since it was still a retail
product - it is now old, no longer updated, and not as fancy as current
viewers - but is now freeware, and it's still the fastest software I
have for going through folders of archived files from webcams, etc.

Not sure if it's exactly what you are looking for, but at the price it's
more than worth a try!

http://www.moonsoftware.com/mxplorer.asp

Bob ^,,^
February 8, 2005 10:46:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Harrington wrote:
>
> I've had Moonsoft's Multimedia Xplorer since it was still a retail
> product - it is now old, no longer updated, and not as fancy as current
> viewers - but is now freeware, and it's still the fastest software I
> have for going through folders of archived files from webcams, etc.
>
> Not sure if it's exactly what you are looking for, but at the price it's
> more than worth a try!
>
> http://www.moonsoftware.com/mxplorer.asp


Thanks for the thought but it doesn't do well at full screen fast flipping.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 6:28:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Bob Harrington wrote:
>>
>> I've had Moonsoft's Multimedia Xplorer since it was still a retail
>> product - it is now old, no longer updated, and not as fancy as
>> current viewers - but is now freeware, and it's still the fastest
>> software I have for going through folders of archived files from
>> webcams, etc. Not sure if it's exactly what you are looking for, but
>> at the price
>> it's more than worth a try!
>>
>> http://www.moonsoftware.com/mxplorer.asp
>
>
> Thanks for the thought but it doesn't do well at full screen fast
> flipping.

How fast do you require? I have a folder here with 240 1280x1024 jpgs
that run 200 to 280 kb each (a several hour stretch of some trees being
removed in my neighborhood, taken with the spiffy intervalometer
function of my Maxxum 7D) - I can get MX to flip through them at about
13 frames per second by holding down the arrow key. I have found that I
sometimes need to go through the folder a bit more slowly the first time
to get as many files loaded into memory as possible, subsequent loops
run much faster with instant updating. I can also tweak the keyboard
repeat speed to fine tune the behavior for larger files if there is
still some update flickering.

My system is a P4 2.4 GHz with 1 Gb RAM, but even on my old K62 500 with
256 Mb, MX would speedily zip through folders of smaller, say 640 x 480
~ 50kb webcam grabs.

Otherwise, have you looked into creating videos of the individual files?
Many video editing packages will let you make MPGs or AVIs of folders of
images. Downside is that they usually suffer in image quality from the
originals. The MX route lets you see them at full glory.

Good luck with your search; please let us know if you find a good
solution - I'm also a fan of time-lapse photography.

Bob ^,,^
February 8, 2005 8:02:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Harrington wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>>Bob Harrington wrote:
>>
>>>I've had Moonsoft's Multimedia Xplorer since it was still a retail
>>>product - it is now old, no longer updated, and not as fancy as
>>>current viewers - but is now freeware, and it's still the fastest
>>>software I have for going through folders of archived files from
>>>webcams, etc. Not sure if it's exactly what you are looking for, but
>>>at the price
>>>it's more than worth a try!
>>>
>>>http://www.moonsoftware.com/mxplorer.asp
>>
>>
>>Thanks for the thought but it doesn't do well at full screen fast
>>flipping.
>
>
> How fast do you require? I have a folder here with 240 1280x1024 jpgs
> that run 200 to 280 kb each (a several hour stretch of some trees being
> removed in my neighborhood, taken with the spiffy intervalometer
> function of my Maxxum 7D) - I can get MX to flip through them at about
> 13 frames per second by holding down the arrow key.

If I hammer on the arrow key, I can get about 8 frames per second which
looks fine but if I hold down the key it gets trapped in "generating
preview" after a few frames. This is true even for little 400x300
frames. I'm running a new Dell 1.5Ghz pentium M (workstation laptop)
with a gig of RAM. I think that's still pretty fast computer, the laptop
M thing is measured differently. NVIDIA Quatro FX Go 100 is I think a
plenty capable video card. Win XP Pro.

> I have found that I
> sometimes need to go through the folder a bit more slowly the first time
> to get as many files loaded into memory as possible, subsequent loops
> run much faster with instant updating. I can also tweak the keyboard
> repeat speed to fine tune the behavior for larger files if there is
> still some update flickering.


Ah OK, I was able to get 1024x768 at about 8 frames/second adjusting the
keyboard repeat speed. Irfanview works fine except in full screen mode
it flickers for no good reason. The best thing yet is Proshow Gold
because it can create a transition between images smoothing them out a
lot. However I just tried dumping 1,200 images on it and it seems to
have locked up attempting the import.

I did also successfully compile with JPGVideo http://www.ndrw.co.uk
shareware at up to 32 frames per second but either the compression was
terrible or the file sizes outrageous. I suspect it was not really
getting 32 fps as it still looked a little jumpy. 120MB of jpegs makes a
100MB compressed avi that irfanview will display full screen: 1,200
images at 100K each 1024x768. If I run uncompressed original images it
makes a 3GB .avi in only a few minutes. Hmm, at 16fps it wouldn't run
smoothly in irfanview. At 8fps Windows Media Player almost runs smoothly.


>
> My system is a P4 2.4 GHz with 1 Gb RAM, but even on my old K62 500 with
> 256 Mb, MX would speedily zip through folders of smaller, say 640 x 480
> ~ 50kb webcam grabs.
>
> Otherwise, have you looked into creating videos of the individual files?
> Many video editing packages will let you make MPGs or AVIs of folders of
> images. Downside is that they usually suffer in image quality from the
> originals. The MX route lets you see them at full glory.
>
> Good luck with your search; please let us know if you find a good
> solution - I'm also a fan of time-lapse photography.
>
> Bob ^,,^
>
>
>
!