Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

moki · 04:07 AM

I've been spending some time lately working on a new feature for Snapz Pro X 1.0.4 called ClearScale -- it essentially works a little graphic magic to make screenshots and movies look significantly better when scaled up or down.

Scaled down screenshots are frequently used to make "thumbnail" images for web sites, so people can see a small version of the screenshot in question before clicking on it to see the full-sized version. The problem is, these scaled down thumbnails are often blurry enough that they don't convey much information.

That's one of the things Snapz Pro X's ClearScale technology is meant to address. Let me know what you think:

Jun 17, 2002, 04:41 PM

Wow, looks good.

funkboy · Jun 17, 2002, 04:51 PM

Very nice. Very awesome, in fact. Time to package that code up and license it to Adobe

moki · Jun 17, 2002, 04:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by funkboy:
Very nice. Very awesome, in fact. Time to package that code up and license it to Adobe

<hr /></blockquote>Well, the same effect can be achieved in PhotoShop or ImageReady with judicious use of filters, but we do it automatically for you in Snapz Pro X (or rather we will, once 1.0.4 is out, which should be shortly).

lookmark · Jun 17, 2002, 04:56 PM

Looks great.

It looks like it achieves similar results as Photoshop's 'Unsharp Mask'.
Does it work the same way? Not that (non-programmer here) I'm as clear on just how PS's Unsharp Mask works as I should be.

Very nifty to be built in, in any case...

moki · Jun 17, 2002, 04:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lookmark:
It looks like it achieves similar results as Photoshop's 'Unsharp Mask'.
Does it work the same way? Not that (non-programmer here) I'm as clear on just how PS's Unsharp Mask works as I should be.

Very nifty to be built in, in any case...<hr /></blockquote>Yep, it is similar, but I do some other things as well, to optimize the effect for this particular task of scaling up/down screenshots. Glad you like it, seems that it was time well-spent researching it.

smeger · Jun 17, 2002, 06:08 PM

I think that's a really nice feature. I'd never considered using Snapz because my needs were met by cmd-shift-3, but just the savings in Photoshop time that this feature provides puts it into my "considering purchasing" category.

Nice work!

Jerommeke · Jun 17, 2002, 06:13 PM

looks gorgeous

Fotek2001 · Jun 17, 2002, 07:00 PM

That looks really good... I particularly the scale up feature but the convenience of not having to manually post-process files after creating them will be a real timesaver.

While we're on the subject of SnapzPro and why it's better than cmd-shift-3, my favourite feature is the ability to fade the edges of windows to a pre-defined colour so that the background doesn't show up. It's little things like this that make all the difference to me when I'm preparing presentations. Now, if only it would let me overwrite an exisitng file instead of beeping at me if the name's already been taken!

moki · Jun 17, 2002, 07:34 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Fotek2001:
While we're on the subject of SnapzPro and why it's better than cmd-shift-3, my favourite feature is the ability to fade the edges of windows to a pre-defined colour so that the background doesn't show up. It's little things like this that make all the difference to me when I'm preparing presentations. Now, if only it would let me overwrite an exisitng file instead of beeping at me if the name's already been taken!<hr /></blockquote>Funny you should mention that, I was just in that code today, looking at that bug (perhaps you were the one who reported it?). In a nutshell, it does that on purpose, to prevent you from accidentally saving over a file that already exists. How would you like it to work?

benh57 · Jun 17, 2002, 08:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:

[qb] In a nutshell, it does that on purpose, to prevent you from accidentally saving over a file that already exists. How would you like it to work?<hr /></blockquote>The way every other mac app works. Prompt you to overwrite or cancel. Depending on the UI you might need to offer rename, or select a different name yourself (like stuffit expander and web browsers do)

-B

moki · Jun 17, 2002, 08:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by benh57:
The way every other mac app works. Prompt you to overwrite or cancel. Depending on the UI you might need to offer rename, or select a different name yourself (like stuffit expander and web browsers do)

-B<hr /></blockquote>Well, ideally, yes... however, Snapz Pro X actually doesn't behave like any other Mac OS X app at all, it just does a very good job faking it. It is part of the nature of how it invokes.

I agree that putting up a "Do you want to replace the existing file named XXXX?" is the ideal solution, however, believe it or not, it isn't a technically easy solution to implement.

Rickster · Jun 17, 2002, 08:29 PM

Neat! Way to go, moki!

ratlater · Jun 17, 2002, 08:51 PM

Wow, lookin' good.

-matt

Adam Betts · Jun 18, 2002, 12:32 AM

Why not make it version 1.1 since ClearScale is one big new feature?

From what I know, x.1 is for features, x.x.1 is for bug fixes... Is that right?

dr. zoidberg · Jun 18, 2002, 04:12 AM

whew, that DOES look nice!

congrats!

Fotek2001 · Jun 18, 2002, 04:23 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted my moki:

Well, ideally, yes... however, Snapz Pro X actually doesn't behave like any other Mac OS X app at all, it just does a very good job faking it. It is part of the nature of how it invokes.
I agree that putting up a "Do you want to replace the existing file named XXXX?" is the ideal solution, however, believe it or not, it isn't a technically easy solution to implement.<hr /></blockquote>Is this because SnapzPro takes over the whole screen and replaces it with an image of what you had on screen before you invoked it? I assume all the windows are drawn on in this way too? The only times that this bug has been a nuisance for me is when I actually want to overwrite something, the option to rename is already there in the dialog so that's not an issue. Something like "Do you want to replace the existing file named XXXX?" would be great if it's not too diffcult!

SteevAK · Jun 18, 2002, 04:26 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smeger:
I think that's a really nice feature. I'd never considered using Snapz because my needs were met by cmd-shift-3, but just the savings in Photoshop time that this feature provides puts it into my "considering purchasing" category.

Nice work!<hr /></blockquote>Ditto.

Developer · Jun 18, 2002, 05:42 AM

Is there a patent pending?

It would be nice to have this in CGImage.

moki · Jun 18, 2002, 07:17 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Why not make it version 1.1 since ClearScale is one big new feature?

From what I know, x.1 is for features, x.x.1 is for bug fixes... Is that right?<hr /></blockquote>Typically, yes, but I like to sneak new features in now and again, too. True story: I showed this to a friend of mine who works at a job selling high end media, and the first thing he was asking me is "what are you going to charge for it?"

Snapz Pro X 1.0.4 will have some nifty new features (including ClearScale), and it will be a free upgrade. I'm going to try to get a beta out before MacHack (or perhaps during -- what better time to be working on code?

).

::maroma:: · Jun 18, 2002, 12:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Fotek2001:
While we're on the subject of SnapzPro and why it's better than cmd-shift-3, my favourite feature is the ability to fade the edges of windows to a pre-defined colour so that the background doesn't show up. It's little things like this that make all the difference to me when I'm preparing presentations. Now, if only it would let me overwrite an exisitng file instead of beeping at me if the name's already been taken!<hr /></blockquote>Funny you should mention that, I was just in that code today, looking at that bug (perhaps you were the one who reported it?). In a nutshell, it does that on purpose, to prevent you from accidentally saving over a file that already exists. How would you like it to work?<hr /></blockquote>How about just having the new file (with the same name as an existing file) be automatically named with a 1 or 2 after it (similar to New Folders in the Finder). I have never used Spapz Pro so I'm not sure if this is possible, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there.

And after reading this thread, and seeing ClearScale, I will definitely be checking this utility out when the new version is released. Looks great! Keep up the good work moki.

MrBS · Jun 18, 2002, 02:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:

<img src="http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/utilities/snapzprox/images/spx_clearscale2.jpg" alt=" - " /><hr /></blockquote>Is that image scaled? It seems like the screen shots are pretty small for being 25%, even on 640x480. Could you put up links to the fullsize scalings?
~BS

moki · Jun 18, 2002, 03:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MrBS:
Is that image scaled? It seems like the screen shots are pretty small for being 25%, even on 640x480. Could you put up links to the fullsize scalings?
~BS<hr /></blockquote>They are indeed scaled to 25% -- the screenshots are of my PowerBook's screen, which was at 1152x768 resolution -- so the resulting screenshots are 288x192 in size (we're talking about the middle screenshots here), or 1/4th the size.

So no, that image isn't scaled at all (but the screenshots in the image certainly are).

More info on Snapz Pro X can be found here:

<a href="http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/utilities/snapzprox/" target="_blank">http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/utilities/snapzprox/</a>

[ 06-18-2002, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: moki ]

MrBS · Jun 18, 2002, 04:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MrBS:
Is that image scaled? It seems like the screen shots are pretty small for being 25%, even on 640x480. Could you put up links to the fullsize scalings?
~BS<hr /></blockquote>They are indeed scaled to 25% -- the screenshots are of my PowerBook's screen, which was at 1152x768 resolution -- so the resulting screenshots are 288x192 in size (we're talking about the middle screenshots here), or 1/4th the size.

So no, that image isn't scaled at all (but the screenshots in the image certainly are).

More info on Snapz Pro X can be found here:

<a href="http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/utilities/snapzprox/" target="_blank">http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/utilities/snapzprox/</a><hr /></blockquote>Sorry, we were just having some issues with the language. I think it's like this:
1/4 width * 1/4 height = 1/16 size... as in it would take 16 of your scaled grabs to fill up your screen; or 1/2 width and 1/2 height for 25% of screen.

At any rate, impressive work. Even more so when you consider the 6.25% <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> scaling.

~BS

moki · Jun 18, 2002, 04:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MrBS:
Sorry, we were just having some issues with the language. I think it's like this:
1/4 width * 1/4 height = 1/16 size... as in it would take 16 of your scaled grabs to fill up your screen; or 1/2 width and 1/2 height for 25% of screen.

At any rate, impressive work. Even more so when you consider the 6.25% <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> scaling.

~BS<hr /></blockquote>Well, typically, you apply the scaling % to the dimensions, not the area...

MrBS · Jun 18, 2002, 04:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
Well, typically, you apply the scaling % to the dimensions, not the area...<hr /></blockquote>I stand corrected.
~BS

ratlater · Jun 18, 2002, 05:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MrBS:
I stand corrected.
~BS<hr /></blockquote>HA.

-matt

moki · Jun 18, 2002, 05:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MrBS:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
Well, typically, you apply the scaling % to the dimensions, not the area...<hr /></blockquote>I stand corrected.
~BS<hr /></blockquote>Just an arbitrary convention, it could go either way.

Immortal K-Mart Employee · Jun 18, 2002, 05:18 PM

So it is adding an Unsharpen mask.

moki · Jun 18, 2002, 05:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
So it is adding an Unsharpen mask.<hr /></blockquote>ClearScale is using a bicubic scaling algorithm, applying what could be thought of as a carefully tweaked unsharp mask, and few other minor things to achieve that look, yes.

[ 06-18-2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: moki ]

Judge_Fire · Jun 18, 2002, 05:49 PM

Looks great!

Any particular problem scenarios, like jpeg compression becoming annoyingly visible when sharpening, or other stuff?

J

Gul Banana · Jun 18, 2002, 07:01 PM

Oooh. "Bicubic" just sounds cool.

Synotic · Jun 18, 2002, 09:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
Looks great!

Any particular problem scenarios, like jpeg compression becoming annoyingly visible when sharpening, or other stuff?

J<hr /></blockquote>I assume it would do this before it made it into a JPEG, or whatever image format...

mpmchugh · Jun 18, 2002, 09:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
Yep, it is similar, but I do some other things as well, to optimize the effect for this particular task of scaling up/down screenshots. Glad you like it, seems that it was time well-spent researching it.<hr /></blockquote>Looks great. Any change of also selling the functionality as an inexpensive photoshop plug-in? I use SnapzPro all the time, but rarely generate thumbnails at the same time. Just a thought.

While we're on the subject of features, anychane of SnapzPro gaining that "capture a complete scrolled Web page" a certain competitor has? I hate piecing together screen captures.

Another cool feature for Web site snaps would be a checkbox for the Object capture option that only caputers the contents of the object window, but not the window frame, toolbars, etc. Would that be possible?

Thanks for a continually great product!

-mpm

moki · Jun 18, 2002, 10:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mpmchugh:

While we're on the subject of features, anychane of SnapzPro gaining that "capture a complete scrolled Web page" a certain competitor has? I hate piecing together screen captures.

<hr /></blockquote>Screen Catcher isn't even OS X native yet, let alone providing this functionality under OS X. I've been fairly tepid about implementing it, because I don't see much use in taking screenshots that are larger than what is on the screen (though I fully realize some people do need that feature).

Regardless, for many people, this functionality is built into OS X:

<a href="http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum1/HTML/000692.html" target="_blank">http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum1/HTML/000692.html</a>

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mpmchugh:
Another cool feature for Web site snaps would be a checkbox for the Object capture option that only caputers the contents of the object window, but not the window frame, toolbars, etc. Would that be possible?
<hr /></blockquote>Yep, this is on the wish list.

gorgonzola · Jun 19, 2002, 12:21 AM

Wow, that's really a lot clearer. I don't really use thumbnails, but I might just have to start fishing for excuses to use them after 1.0.4 comes out... ;-)

CharlesS · Jun 19, 2002, 12:29 AM

Apple should do this for the Dock minimized windows.

oVeRmInD911 · Jun 19, 2002, 01:29 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CharlesS:
Apple should do this for the Dock minimized windows.<hr /></blockquote>Omni should do this for scaling websites. Sure, it would probably take forever, but it would be fuuuun. (Think Opera's site-scaling feature.)

Immortal K-Mart Employee · Jun 19, 2002, 02:22 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CharlesS:
Apple should do this for the Dock minimized windows.<hr /></blockquote>OSX not slow enough for you as is?

Gul Banana · Jun 19, 2002, 04:53 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CharlesS:
Apple should do this for the Dock minimized windows.<hr /></blockquote>OSX not slow enough for you as is?<hr /></blockquote>Actually, if you have the highest end mac with over a gigabyte of ram, Aqua's eye candy causes no perceptible slowdown!

Mithras · Jun 19, 2002, 08:38 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
[I've been fairly tepid about implementing it, because I don't see much use in taking screenshots that are larger than what is on the screen (though I fully realize some people do need that feature).

Regardless, for many people, this functionality is built into OS X:

<a href="http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum1/HTML/000692.html" target="_blank">http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/Forum1/HTML/000692.html</a>
<hr /></blockquote>No offense, but when I read that page, I see a lot of different people stating a fervent desire for that feature, insisting that 'print to PDF' doesn't do what they want. I also see you trying over and over again to tell them that 'print to PDF' is good enough.

Personally I don't need any such feature at all, but you definitely have a consumer demand there that you'd be foolish not to recognize.

absmiths · Jun 19, 2002, 10:14 AM

Those are some incredible results. Does applying ClearScale significantly affect the time for creating movies, etc?

moki · Jun 19, 2002, 11:08 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mithras:
No offense, but when I read that page, I see a lot of different people stating a fervent desire for that feature, insisting that 'print to PDF' doesn't do what they want. I also see you trying over and over again to tell them that 'print to PDF' is good enough.

Personally I don't need any such feature at all, but you definitely have a consumer demand there that you'd be foolish not to recognize.<hr /></blockquote>No, I agree with you that there is consumer demand for that feature, and stated as such in my post. How much demand is another question; it is certainly true that the print to PDF capability built into Mac OS X has satisfied many people in regards to the "Catch All" functionality.

For some people, that feature isn't an adequate substitute, and while I don't really understand what people use this feature for, I have made an attempt to understand, and I do recognize that there is demand for it.

I asked people what they used the "catch all" feature for, and the majority of them said they used to to save web pages to disk for reading them later or offline. This is something that print to PDF solves perfectly (and I pointed out that they could use save the pages as "Web Archives" via Internet Explorer) -- it is just that many people were unaware of this built-in capability.

The people who aren't satisfied with this substitute functionality seem to all use it for taking screenshots of web pages for their portfolios (they are web designers). I have been considering the idea of implementing said functionality in Snapz Pro X, but I have other features that I'm considering more important at this time.

If anyone else can tell me what they'd use such a feature for, I'd seriously be interested in hearing it. It's possible I'm just not understanding unique uses for it.

moki · Jun 19, 2002, 11:09 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by absmiths:
Those are some incredible results. Does applying ClearScale significantly affect the time for creating movies, etc?<hr /></blockquote>It does slow things down a little bit, but only in the post-processing phase, and we're not talking about a *lot* of added time. Most people won't notice the difference, since they just let Snapz save the QuickTime movie in the background after it is done recording.

moki · Jun 19, 2002, 11:12 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CharlesS:
Apple should do this for the Dock minimized windows.<hr /></blockquote>OSX not slow enough for you as is?<hr /></blockquote>The dock thumbnail image needs to be generated by the application in question anyway -- if the Dock applied a ClearScale filter to it once when it was minimized, I don't think anyone would notice the delay. It's a pretty fast algorithm, and the area is pretty small for minimized windows.

Immortal K-Mart Employee · Jun 19, 2002, 12:42 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gul Banana:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CharlesS:
Apple should do this for the Dock minimized windows.<hr /></blockquote>OSX not slow enough for you as is?<hr /></blockquote>Actually, if you have the highest end mac with over a gigabyte of ram, Aqua's eye candy causes no perceptible slowdown!<hr /></blockquote>So all 3 of you are living the good life then eh.

Adam Betts · Jun 19, 2002, 01:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
If anyone else can tell me what they'd use such a feature for, I'd seriously be interested in hearing it. It's possible I'm just not understanding unique uses for it.<hr /></blockquote>Few reason why PDF sucks:

1. It's very sloooow on MacOSX.
2. Some of the stuffs are messed up such as HTML table
3. Have to view page by page, not one whole thing.
4. It'll take way more time to puzzle each page to become one large graphic. Snapz Pro X could snap the whole page and create thumbnail at same time. It'll save lot of time.
5. The actual size is much smaller than the original one.
6. Widgets such as Push Button, CheckBox, etc look awful and messed up.
7. In OmniWeb, for Background Image: Draw on printer is turned off by default so lot of people will be having problem trying to figure out why PDF won't print the background image.
8. Of course, full screen snap looks more prettier than the plain PDF one.

Please add the feature in Snapz Pro X. I'll volunteer to become your janitor for free if you don't have one

JKT · Jun 19, 2002, 01:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Adam Betts:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
If anyone else can tell me what they'd use such a feature for, I'd seriously be interested in hearing it. It's possible I'm just not understanding unique uses for it.<hr /></blockquote>Few reason why PDF sucks:

3. Have to view page by page, not one whole thing.
<hr /></blockquote>FWIW, if you are using OmniWeb, command-option-shift-S saves the site as a .pdf which is scaled so that it fits just the one page...

MrBS · Jun 19, 2002, 03:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:

If anyone else can tell me what they'd use such a feature for, I'd seriously be interested in hearing it. It's possible I'm just not understanding unique uses for it.<hr /></blockquote>I don't take many screen shots, so I just use the apple shortcuts, but one thing I always do is take a snapshot of the confirmation page whenever I buy anything online. Depending on what you're buying and where you're buying it from the confirmation page can often times be taller than your web browser's window.
~BS

Adam Betts · Jun 19, 2002, 04:15 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JKT:
FWIW, if you are using OmniWeb, command-option-shift-S saves the site as a .pdf which is scaled so that it fits just the one page...<hr /></blockquote>Tried it recently and got the Spinning Rainbow of Death <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />