ACDSee Pro 3

Back to Topic OverviewPost New Reply

ver3.0 missing important features...

(24 posts)
1 2

  • tinami
    Member

    Now I have two problems using ver 3.0.

    Without any support on these problems, I have to consider returning to older versions. It is really annoying me now and I regret my hasty purchase of ver 3.0.

    1. ver 3.0 can't auto-resize the window size any more.

      When viewing the photos in 'Fit Image' zoom mode, auto-resizing option is very useful . As far as I know, all previous versions provide the option and changed window size to fit image through display option.

    Just think.  Without this option, viewing photos in different screen size, I have to adjust the window size of each photos 'manually' to see them in best quality.

    2. In 'Actual size' zoom mode, impossible to reduce the window size less than half the original window size.

    In older versions, it was possible. It is useful when I want to see a specific part of photos.

    Posted On October 17, 2009 - 02:32 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • fharczuk
    Member

    I agree why would this be removed?

    Posted On October 18, 2009 - 03:26 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    tinami said:

    Now I have two problems using ver 3.0.

    Without any support on these problems, I have to consider returning to older versions. It is really annoying me now and I regret my hasty purchase of ver 3.0.

    1. ver 3.0 can't auto-resize the window size any more.

      When viewing the photos in 'Fit Image' zoom mode, auto-resizing option is very useful . As far as I know, all previous versions provide the option and changed window size to fit image through display option.

    Just think.  Without this option, viewing photos in different screen size, I have to adjust the window size of each photos 'manually' to see them in best quality.

    Not sure what you mean by this.  Why you need the size of the window to change in order to see n image in "best quality"?  What do you mean by "best quality"?  I'd think that would mean, viewed at 1:1, but that doesn't require resizing the window.

    2. In 'Actual size' zoom mode, impossible to reduce the window size less than half the original window size.

    In older versions, it was possible. It is useful when I want to see a specific part of photos.

    Again, I am not understand what reducing window size has to do with this.  Do you mean, you want to shrink the window just so you don't see more of the image than yo are interested in?

    Posted On October 19, 2009 - 03:57 AM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • tinami
    Member

    Dear Marc,

    I don't understand why you don't understand my problems.

    about problem no. 1 :

    Consider that the maximum resolution your mornitor provides is 1280*1024 and you have two photos ,whose sizes are 640*480 and 4000*3000 respectively, in a folder.

    In 'Full size' mode, can you see the whole part of 4000*3000 photo in resolution of 1280*1024?

    You are telling the 1:1 view provides best quality.

    You're right. But without scrolling, you don't know exactly what 4000*3000 photo is about in 1:1 view. You will have to see the large picture in 'Fit image' mode to see the whole part of course.

    In 'Fit Image' mode, you see 640*480 photo first and then see 4000*3000 photo.

    Maybe you will see 4000*3000 photo in 640*480 window size. If 4000*3000 photo have some characters? You will have to increase the window size manually to see what the characters are about. As for ACDsee pro ver 2.5, it has 'Change window size to fit image' in 'window size' option and you don't have to drag your mouse to enlarge the window size. Using ver 3.0, I actually was forced to handle my mouse to see my photos in different sizes. No, no more.

    about problem no. 2 :

    Sometimes I want to see a specific part of large photos in my old notebook whose maximum resolution is only 1024*768. Don't ask me why I have to see that part. Just I want to and sometimes I have to.

    At least, ver 2.5 offed more covenience to its users.

    I hope you understand my problem.

    I am already giving up on ver 3.0. If you don't offer any patch on these problems, I'll scrap the program and never return to ver 3.0.

     

    Posted On October 19, 2009 - 03:34 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    tinami said:

    In 'Fit Image' mode, you see 640*480 photo first and then see 4000*3000 photo.

    Maybe you will see 4000*3000 photo in 640*480 window size. If 4000*3000 photo have some characters? You will have to increase the window size manually to see what the characters are about.

    Why would you go to all that trouble rather than just leave your window maximized (or sized as large as you think you might want) all the time?  What is the advantage of making it smaller just because you might sometimes view smaller images?  That is the part I don't get - what advantage is there in having the window get smaller for the 640x480 image?

    about problem no. 2 :

    Sometimes I want to see a specific part of large photos in my old notebook whose maximum resolution is only 1024*768. Don't ask me why I have to see that part. Just I want to and sometimes I have to.

    This also I still don't understand.  You *can* see that part.  It's just that you can't make the window small enough to avoid seeing other parts too.  If it's important to be able to cut out the other parts, then you're right, doesn't look like that would be easy to do in Pro 3, but certainly it can show you you any part you want.

    I am already giving up on ver 3.0. If you don't offer any patch on these problems, I'll scrap the program and never return to ver 3.0

    Note I can't offer you patches or anything like that - I'm just a fellow user trying to help you figure out how to get the program to do what you want.  But I can't help if I don't understand what it is you want.

    Posted On October 21, 2009 - 03:00 AM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • BrettB
    Member

    I am not sure what you want either. Perhaps some screenshots would help?

    Posted On October 21, 2009 - 06:01 AM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • fharczuk
    Member

    Here is the screenshot, "Change window siz..." is missing from version 3.0.  This was available with ACDSee back to the beginning with the non pro version and the pro version.  Did they forget it because all of us are missing it or a bug???

    Attached Files

    1. Clip.jpg
    Posted On October 26, 2009 - 07:48 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • BrettB
    Member

    I sympathise when things that matter to you get changed. I still don't quite understand what this option did for you, or why it is important to you, and I have uninstalled 2.5 now so I can't try it.

    I suspect that 'they' haven't 'forgotten' it but that it didn't fit in with the new tabbed interface.

    Posted On October 26, 2009 - 08:52 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • fharczuk
    Member

    I think tinami made it clear, no sense repeating it.

    thanks for your quick response

    Posted On October 26, 2009 - 09:19 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    I understand what the option does; I don't understand why anyone would find that behavior important.  That is, what advantage is there in having the window sometimes get smaller rather than always staying large?

    In any case, what I think doesn't really matter.  If you have a request to make of ACD, you should contact them directly, via the Support link at top left of this page.  but I'm sure they'll have the same reaction that I am - scratching their heads wondering why anyone would want their windows to sometimes shrink rather than remain large.  If they understand why it is important to you, I'm sure that would increase the odds of them deciding to do something about it at some point.

    Posted On October 30, 2009 - 04:05 AM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • fharczuk
    Member

    I guess you didn't read the original post.

    When a company thinks they know more than the user then they areen't listening, and what else are they not listening to.  Maybe they know better but if a significant amount of customer request something then maybe the company really doesn't know how the product is used or should be used.

    Very simply when I am browsing images i would like to see the actual image at 100%, if its to large for the screen then it reduce it to full screen.  I don't have to look at the percentge value at the bottom to see the real size.  The way it is now I have to full screen acdsee all the time and still look at the bottom to see if the image is actual or not.  I prefer the actual image size.

    As a moderator shouldn't you forward these requests to acdsee?

    Posted On October 31, 2009 - 11:27 AM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • John Radcliffe
    Member

    I'm sorry, but I don't see what having the window resize when an image at 100% doesn't fill the screen achieves that just having a black border around it doesn’t. (I would have thought seeing another application behind the window would have been more distracting.) Other than that, doesn’t selecting the options "Fit Image" and "Reduce Only" achieve what you seem to require: large images reduced so that you can see the entire image; smaller images never shown larger than 100%?

    However, I may be misunderstanding something, and I would certainly agree that it is annoying to have features you like removed (in my case, such as being able to choose a non-black colour scheme). Consequently, I would suggest you submit a Support Ticket to request that this feature be reinstated.

    (FWIW my understanding is that the moderators are here to keep good order, and to sort out problems with the forums themselves, not to act as intermediaries between individual users and the development team.)

    Posted On November 2, 2009 - 01:51 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    fharczuk said:

    I guess you didn't read the original post.

    I did read it.  I'm just saying I don't understand it.  The original poster says that he has to adjust the window size for each photo manually in order to see them at best quality.  But that just isn't true - you can see all your images at best quality without resizing the window.  I'm guessing the original poster is misunderstanding something about how ACDSee works and the various resize options it provides, but I can absolutely guarantee that you do *not* need auto-resizing in order to see your images at best quality, nor do you have to ever resize the window manually.  So I'm just asking for more clarification as to what people are trying to do, since the post as it stands is confusing.

    When a company thinks they know more than the user then they areen't listening

    Note that no one from the company (ACD Systems) has posted anything on this thread, so there's no point in making claims about what they do or don't think.  I'm just a fellow user saying *I* don't understand the problem, and advising tht *if* you wish to make an enhancement request to ACD, you should consider wording in a way that makes the importance of the feature more clear, because right now, it isn't clear at all.  If it really is important for some reason that has not been adequately explained thus far, then sure, I think it would be great to see the feature get added.  I'm just saying that's not likely to happen if ACD doesn't understand its importance.  The fact that several of us on this thread are saying we don't understand should be evidence that something about the explanation given is unclear.  So again, my friendly advice is, if you report this to ACD and hpe to get it fixed, it would be best to word it in such a way tha the importance of the feature is clear.  Feel free to try to clarify your wording here - if you can make your fellow users understand, then chances are good you'll be able to make ACD understand too.

    Very simply when I am browsing images i would like to see the actual image at 100%, if its to large for the screen then it reduce it to full screen.

    First, this is a totally different thing from what the original post was asking about.  He was talking about resizing the *window*, not resizing the *image*.  Second, the options already exist to do exactly what you describe, as far as I am understanding it.  If you want your image to always be 100% unless it's too large to fit, then simply set your Display options to "fit image" and the resize option to "reduce only".  Leave your application window full size.

    As a moderator shouldn't you forward these requests to acdsee?

    No, that is not my "job" (actually, none of what I do here is a "job" - it's strictly volunteer).  My purpose is simply to help make sure discussions here go smoothly.  When I can help out by offering advice, I do so.  But if you have requests to make of ACD, you need to do so directly by contacting their customer support via the Support link at top left of this page.

    Posted On November 2, 2009 - 04:31 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • gurm42
    Member

    Interestingly, ACDSee 2009 (non-pro) still has this feature - but only on the full viewer, not the quick viewer! Pro's full viewer has the filmstrip at the bottom, probably why they nixed this feature.

     

    To elaborate why we care... I like to use my mouse wheel to scroll through pictures. I also like to be able to quickly click back onto a folder to navigate... so I like the ACDSee window to ONLY take up the minimum amount of space necessary. I don't like a screen full of black.

     

    Could I simply navigate using the ACDSee interface? Sure. Would this probably speed things up in the long run? Yes. But is it the way I work? Absolutely not.

     

    I think what the OP was saying was that we've gotten very used to working a specific way - and some of us really don't like having our viewer maximized full screen all the time!

     

    I personally am faced with the choice - drop down to the non-pro version (2009) or to the previous release of pro (2.5), since 3.0 simply doesn't support this... OR I must just get used to working a completely different way. Not sure which is worse.

    Posted On November 3, 2009 - 02:58 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • gurm42
    Member

    Also, even if I drop to 2009, I can't use the quick viewer since it doesn't have this feature. I find this puzzling and bizarre. I've been using ACDSee since the very first version, and the ability to spin my mouse wheel and have a fast, accurate, resizing view of images is something I've come to rely on for more than 10 years! It's why I stuck with ACDSee when it festered and got slower and pokier with each release before they really optimized the code.

    Posted On November 3, 2009 - 03:00 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • tdi
    Member

    Marc we get that you don't understand it, but your responses, and position with ACDSee (yes position, moderator, not paid, but you have a position with them as they had to give you this moderator status) makes your responses appear as 'official' and that is something you DO need to understand, whether you agree with the perception or not, it exists.  Embrace it because it is underlying in all your posts and if you don't like that it is that way, then maybe you should have your 'moderator' status removed so you become 'just another user'.

    Tinami was expressing a concern over a missing feature that has been there all along apparently, and is important to him.  It shouldn't matter that YOU dont understand why it's important to him. It just is important to him and ACDSee needs to be aware of it, and you, being a moderator for ACDSee, when you continually argue with someone over whether or not a feature should matter because it doesn't matter to you, then you give the impression that ACDSee is rejecting his opinion.  Not fair?  Maybe.  But fact? yes.  And because of your position here, you really need to take a hard look at that fact and how your 'opinions' come across to those who are just 'users' here.  You have been very helpful in these forums, but one really gets the sense that if 'it's not Marc's way, it's wrong' which feels like narcissistic tendencies.  You need to know how you are being perceived.  Not trying to attack you here, just trying to get you to take a long look at what your position does and how it relates through your posts.

    Posted On November 3, 2009 - 05:02 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • gurm42
    Member

    TDI,

     

    Yes that feature has been in ACDSee since the very beginning, it's one of the reasons I've always used ACDSee even though it got bloated and horrible in the middle revisions.

    Posted On November 3, 2009 - 06:24 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • BrettB
    Member

    one really gets the sense that if 'it's not Marc's way, it's wrong' which feels like narcissistic tendencies

    I'm sure Marc doesn't need anyone to defend him, but your use of the second person suggests you think this pejorative opinion is generally held - I doubt that it is.

    Being moderator does not prevent Marc from expressing a reasoned opinion or anyone from disagreeing with it.

    Posted On November 3, 2009 - 06:38 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • gurm42
    Member

    I think that the pervasive feeling at ACDSee is probably "we took that out because it doesn't play nice with the new interface and we really want you to use the new interface". That new interface is pretty similar to Photochop Elephants, incidentally, which I'm sure is the primary competition.

    I didn't get the sense that Marc was being a jerk, just that he REALLY didn't undetstand why someone would care about this.

    Posted On November 3, 2009 - 06:45 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • John Radcliffe
    Member

    For what it's worth, I for one don't share the perception that Marc is seen as speaking officially for ACD Systems. I also don't see why Marc shouldn't be allowed to express his own opinion here just because he is one of the forum moderators. My guess is that without that right he'd have no interest in contributing to these forums: why would he if he couldn't express his own opinions (which, of course, don't always agree with ACD Systems "official line")?

    I'd suggest that Marc asked for clarification about why the missing feature was important to some users for the same reasons that I did: (1) because we're curious ("nosy", if you prefer); (2) in case once we did understand we could suggest a workaround; and (3) because we might even find that feature useful ourselves once we understood why others do.

    Thanks to gurm42's explanation, my curiosity is satisfied, but in this case (2) and (3) haven't applied. But as I said before, I'd encourage users who do miss this feature to contact ACD Support and say that they would like it put back.

    Posted On November 4, 2009 - 01:38 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

Subscribe to this topic via RSS

1 2

Reply »

You must log in to post.