Fixed Thumbnail quality in xenforo is abysmal in spite of trying to force 100% quality

[sross]

I've done the hard coded suggestions to improve thumbnail quality with no success. I was running GD, then some said image magick does better thumbnails. I saw zero difference with image magick. I have done more testing and the below image shows a "100%" quality (supposedly) xenforo thumbnail on the left. The image to the right is what a true 100% quality thumbnail should look like. You can see a drastic difference.

here is another example, xenforo thumbnail left, what a true 100% should look like right:

Maybe not a big deal for some, but when you run a photo community it is a big deal. Is there anything else I can do? Maybe I missed something. On a side note vbgallery and photopost gallery do NOT have this blurry thumbnail issue, I always had tack sharp thumbnails using their systems but I can't get xenforo to work here.

p.s. the same quality issues plague the avatars and most everything else, welcome to fuzzyville..

Thanks for any help

 

[Mike]

You posted about this (roughly) before and we asked for the copies of the original size images so we can do some like-for-like testing. I don't recall those being provided though. Can you provide them from these examples?

I don't think we've generally had complaints about them being that bad in general, so being able to see what results we get on the same images is an important test.

 

[sross]

sorry, here is one in question above. For these purposes it can be considered the 'original' as what I have attached correlates to the thumbnail samples above. I was able to create an adequate thumbnail with this attached image, but xf thumbnail was blurry.

 

[Chris D]

OK. Here's the weird thing. In the following three thumbnails, quite clearly there's an odd one out. The first one is from your site. The third one is from my local install. The second one is from your site too...







The difference between the first and second, despite being from the same site, and the same file, is that the first is a screenshot of how it appears in your media list and the second is how it is actually stored on the file system.

Here's a link to the thumbnail, I'm sure you'll agree the quality is reasonable:
http://www.apug.org/forum/data/xengallery/153/153112-37c3b8f6ae89aa54f06cf3016179fbee.jpg?1458746048

Ultimately it appears as though the blurriness is caused by how the browser renders the image. Specifically, it's the "vertical-align: middle" property that causes it to be blurry, in Chrome at least. It seems fine in Safari and Firefox.

It's an odd behaviour but at least we seem to have an explanation now.

 

[sross]

OK. Here's the weird thing. In the following three thumbnails, quite clearly there's an odd one out. The first one is from your site. The third one is from my local install. The second one is from your site too...

View attachment 131494

View attachment 131496

View attachment 131495

The difference between the first and second, despite being from the same site, and the same file, is that the first is a screenshot of how it appears in your media list and the second is how it is actually stored on the file system.

Here's a link to the thumbnail, I'm sure you'll agree the quality is reasonable:
http://www.apug.org/forum/data/xengallery/153/153112-37c3b8f6ae89aa54f06cf3016179fbee.jpg?1458746048

Ultimately it appears as though the blurriness is caused by how the browser renders the image. Specifically, it's the "vertical-align: middle" property that causes it to be blurry, in Chrome at least. It seems fine in Safari and Firefox.

It's an odd behaviour but at least we seem to have an explanation now.

Thanks for that, it's an interesting find. My screenshots come from OSX latest and safari so I wonder if OS is an issue as well I'll try some other systems. In any case I've gone from never having complaints about thumbnails (previously vbulletin, vbgallery) to a constant stream of people asking when the thumbnails will be fixed on the new site. So, am unsure where to go from here. The worst case scenario is I migrate my xengallery to photopost pro, but that seems an insane thing to do to regain thumbnail quality.

 

[sross]

I'm still not overly convinced even the file system version is all that sharp. Here is another from the filesystem (top) and a version I made from original and resized to same scale (bottom):

I selected this to show some edge sharpness contrast. Of note would be the tree line near the bottom, the rockface to the left side above the tree line.

 

[sross]

to add to your 3 images, here are the three you listed + the 'ideal' quality below that:

#4 is quite a bit of difference. Sure the two above are ok but why settle for that when you see #4 and what it should be..

 

[Chris D]

I am pleased to announce that we have made some improvements to the next version of XFMG which will affect this.

I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that there seems to be a browser related impact on quality which looks like it could be a bug in Chrome, so that may still need addressing; but I can't confirm that on the default style, in normal conditions.

However, the first improvement is that you will no longer have to make code edits to adjust thumbnail quality, there is now an option for it:


More significant is the second improvement which runs thumbnails through a sharpening filter.

Thumbnail from your site:

Thumbnail generated by XFMG 1.1.6:


I am hoping that works better for you.

 

[sross]

I am pleased to announce that we have made some improvements to the next version of XFMG which will affect this.

I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that there seems to be a browser related impact on quality which looks like it could be a bug in Chrome, so that may still need addressing; but I can't confirm that on the default style, in normal conditions.

However, the first improvement is that you will no longer have to make code edits to adjust thumbnail quality, there is now an option for it:
View attachment 131722

More significant is the second improvement which runs thumbnails through a sharpening filter.

Thumbnail from your site:

Thumbnail generated by XFMG 1.1.6:
View attachment 131724

I am hoping that works better for you.

This is brilliant, can't wait to get it running Thanks Chris!

 

[sross]

@Chris D just to clarify, this is not currently available for download but will be released in the near future? Thanks

 

[Chris D]

Correct.

 

[Chris D]

The updated code is running here now.

The following was produced with the new code:



I think this looks like an improvement.

Our thumbnails are obviously a bit larger, but feel free to upload some more test images.

 

[sross]

great stuff so I'm assuming rebuilding the thumbs after adjusting these settings will work too?

 

[Chris D]

That's correct.

 

[sross]

@Chris D have you done any testing with GD vs. Imagemagick? I'm just curious if one is better than the other regarding thumbnail generation and these new settings. Are the new settings compatible with both or just GD? Thanks

 

[Chris D]

XFMG only uses GD to create thumbnails at the moment.

 

[sross]

XFMG only uses GD to create thumbnails at the moment.

Ah right, got confused with attachment settings. In any case have rebuilt my thumbs on the new system and a huge improvement. Glad you guys took this on

 

[Will Franco]

I am pleased to announce that we have made some improvements to the next version of XFMG which will affect this.

I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that there seems to be a browser related impact on quality which looks like it could be a bug in Chrome, so that may still need addressing; but I can't confirm that on the default style, in normal conditions.

However, the first improvement is that you will no longer have to make code edits to adjust thumbnail quality, there is now an option for it:
View attachment 131722

More significant is the second improvement which runs thumbnails through a sharpening filter.

Thumbnail from your site:

Thumbnail generated by XFMG 1.1.6:
View attachment 131724

I am hoping that works better for you.

Where do I find this option, please?