I dragged and dropped a landscape photo with dimensions (1067x1600) I then manually entered “3000” px in the H box. The W box changed to 2000 px. The scale now showed as 1.9x
I then dragged a portrait photo and this time just adjusted the scale to 1.9x but then the dimensions showed as “H 3040 px” and “W 2027 px” with Scale showing as 1.9x.
Whether I drag and drop a landscape or portrait image, it doesn’t matter. When 1.9x is entered in Scale, 3040x2027px is what is shown.
So which is it, because they both can’t be 1.9x if the dimensions are different (3000x2000 vs 3040x2027) - this means the scale is not correct but I feel the bigger issue here is because the scale doesn’t include 2 digits after the period. Scale should be 1.xx instead of the current 1.x so allowing us to refine the exact dimensions we want.
Right now most image sets contain a mix of landscape and portrait and because I can’t place a value in either the H or W boxes as then all landscape and portrait photos will choose that, I have to do it via scale. I can’t use scale now, because of this bug so have to stop using the tool completely until the scale issue is fixed. Thanks!
Yes, the rounding issue with just the single number after the period is creating this problem and therefore the only solution is to make it a dual number after the period as that is the only way to resolve this matter. Hopefully this will not be an issue to quickly implement in a future upcoming version. I have attached 2 photos (1 landscape, 1 portrait) that faced this issue.
To replicate:
Drag and drop either photo, 1067x1600 or 1600x1067.
Manually change the “1600” to “3000”. Scale will show 1.9x
Clear photo / reset.
Drag and drop either photo, 1067x1600 or 1600x1067.
Manually enter 1.9 in Scale input box. The “1600” instead of changing to “3000”, will show “3040”.
I’m sorry but “it is what it is, just deal with it”, is not a solution. I’m not sure what the big problem is to add 2 or even 3 decimal places after the period, is? The program is already factoring in that when it makes the upscale changes. We just don’t get to see it visually because the box only shows 1 place after the period. Widening the box so we can see 1.xxx and allowing us to edit the numbers is asking too much?
Yes as you say, the scale unit is not exact. However it could be if we had more control over the number. 1600 scaling up to 3040 is exactly 1.9. 1600 scaling up to 3000 is 1.875. So why not show the full scale number and allow us to edit it? It baffles me that a professional program would be so limiting in terms of user input. This isn’t even a major coding request as the program is already doing this from the results. We just need to visually see and edit the full scale number.
I’ve already explained that when we have folders of several 100s of images and where all images are a mix of portrait and landscape, it becomes very cumbersome to mass edit in the way that you’re suggesting. Your none solution means I have to go into a folder, separate all the landscape images into another folder, drag them, do the upscaling on one axis then repeat this for the portrait images on the other axis, then merge both sets of processed images back into one folder. With so many pictures per folder, this is just extra tedious work that wouldn’t be necessary if simple changes were made to the product GUI.
That being said, this wasn’t a problem from several versions back. This problem crept up in the last 8 versions. Prior to these versions, the scale could be entered and all landscape and portrait pictures on their longest side remained true to the exact dimensions requested. Having to split landscape and portrait pictures into separate folders to achieve the same result has only been something recently introduced, probably due to a code change.
If you can’t figure out what was in the old code that didn’t cause this issue to get some insight then perhaps you add something to the GUI where if we change 1600 to 3000 on a portrait image and select “apply to all images” that the program then knows to apply it to the correct axis of a landscape image. Maybe a checkbox/switch near these boxes saying so? This would make the most sense as someone who has 1067x1600 and wants to upscale it to 2000x3000. If they had a landscape image 1600x1067 in the same folder and wanted it to scale up to the same dimensions then the program would know to apply 3000 to the 1600 and not the 1067 axis thus making that image even larger which is what happens now because of all these changes. So landscape images come out at 3000x4498 when apply “current settings to all” is selected. So all the portrait images are large and the landscape images are even larger.
Got it, this is about using landscape and portrait photos with the same pixel dimensions and upscaling them all the same amount.
We have a feature for this in the roadmap to use the longest/shortest edge which would fix this issue.
For now, I can look into adding more decimal places. We can likely fit 3 decimal places by shifting the shortcuts over. It’s a manageable design change. I’ll speak with my team about it and make a task.
We are adding 3 decimal places to the upscale menu for the version coming Thursday. This will let you have more control over the output file pixel dimensions. Update to v1.4.4 and you should be able to upscale your images by the same amount.
In 1-2 months, we will also have an upscale by long/short edge feature in the Autopilot Upscaling menu.
Let me know if you have further questions about this.
Thank you very much for offering a solution. Yes the 3 decimal places should help alleviate any immediate problems. I’m glad to hear that the long term solution will be coming down the line where the program will correctly identify the long/short edge and apply the dimensions to that. This is awesome news and will definitely help to improve the workflow. Thanks again!
