FR: Consistent aspect ratio in coverbrowser/mosaic menu

[tymmej]

It would be nice if books had same aspect ratio in mosaic menu.

It seems that modifying

koreader/plugins/coverbrowser.koplugin/mosaicmenu.lua

Line 588 in 46449eb

local image= ImageWidget:new{

will achieve that:

scale_factor = nil,
width = max_img_w,
height = max_img_h,
stretch_limit_percentage = 20, -- G_reader_settings:readSetting("screensaver_stretch_limit_percentage")?

[poire-z]

It would be nice if books had same aspect ratio in mosaic menu.

You mean screwing the original aspect ratios, and so distorting the cover images, so you get a perfect grid with the same spacing everywhere ?
I'm quite against that :) so, in any case, it should be an option - or a user patch, because it doesn't really feel like a feature, but more something for OCD people :)
Also not sure our "fake text covers" are sized, you get them with books without a cover.

(What about that bottom right cover on your 2nd screenshot ? Is the 2nd the original rendering where indeed there is this odd cover, that is fixed with your change on the first screenshot ?)

[Frenzie]

in any case, it should be an option - or a user patch, because it doesn't really feel like a feature, but more something for OCD people :)

As also indirectly pointed out in the OP it already is. The main question is if people who like the sleep screen stretching also like it on thumbnails. Pinging @zwim since he wrote it.

[mergen3107]

As a compromise, how about an option to introduce border around all covers? The border itself will have the same size, but covers inside it will have original aspect ratio.

[Commodore64user]

in any case, it should be an option - or a user patch, because it doesn't really feel like a feature, but more something for OCD people :)

As also indirectly pointed out in the OP it already is. The main question is if people who like the sleep screen stretching also like it on thumbnails. Pinging @zwim since he wrote it.

I am a sleep screen stretcher and no, i don't want it in my thumbnails.

[tymmej]

I've added options.

On screenshots are three situations:

1. enabled, all covers stretched
2. enabled, not all covers stretched
3. disabled

[offset-torque]

I vote yes for this. Although it doesn't bother me personally, I can understand the motivation to have a regular grid. For some users this can be really bothering.

And stretching sounds bad at first but unless the book has a weird ratio like a square, at these thumbnail sizes, stretching is nearly imperceptile. If you put side-by-side with the original cover you can notice the difference. But I couldn't tell if you showed me that stretched NAMERYKA book and asked if it has original ratio or not.

Setting this on by default is not a nice behavior, we shouldn't stretch people's covers without permission. But if it is not too much trouble to implement, we can add this option I think.

[benoit-pierre]

I'm with @mergen3107: don't stretch, don't add yet another option: draw the box outline with the same dimensions. Which I imagine would look like the 2nd situation screenshoted above.

[poire-z]

draw the box outline with the same dimensions. Which I imagine would look like the 2nd situation screenshoted above.

You mean this ?!:

I'm quite against that, it's really ugly.

As a compromise, how about an option to introduce border around all covers? The border itself will have the same size, but covers inside it will have original aspect ratio.

I don't understand: all covers already have a border. At first, I thought you wanted that border to reach out the identical side, meaning thicker black borders to fill the blank. But you mention The border itself will have the same size, so not sure.

Anyway, nobody until this FR complained :) so I'm for not changing anything.

[benoit-pierre]

draw the box outline with the same dimensions. Which I imagine would look like the 2nd situation screenshoted above.

You mean this ?!: I'm quite against that, it's really ugly.

Different strokes… ¯\(ツ)/¯ Looks prettier to me than the current default.

[tymmej]

I've created PR with settings:

1. defaults are same as now
2. enabled with limit 0% - @benoit-pierre should be happy
3. enabled with higher limit - I should be happy

[tymmej]

As @offset-torque said, I cannot see if cover was stretched or not, but inconsistent grid is very obvious.

[Commodore64user]

I don't really mind this so long as it is off by default, I just think it would be best implemented like the existing stretch feature found on the sleep screen. so just one setting added to the menu.

[noxhirsch]

I find it very interesting that so many people are against this feature (as an option). As someone who works a lot with graphic designers, I'm absolutely sure that without a direct comparison, almost no one is able to see a distortion of 5-10% - and most are not even able to see a distortion of 20%.
However, the different cover sizes are visible to virtually everyone (not everyone is bothered, of course).
In fact, that was the first thing that bothered me about the cover browser, as I'm used to consistent covers from my Onyx Boox - and one of the first things I changed locally on my device (with no option, so not good enough for a PR).
So I hope @tymmej's PR gets accepted - with default “off”, it should actually be a good compromise for everyone.

[Commodore64user]

I'm absolutely sure that without a direct comparison, almost no one is able to see a distortion of 5-10% - and most are not even able to see a distortion of 20%.

not sure about others, but I definitely can.

I see the word 'consistent' being used to mean same size..? not sure why, but there is nothing inconsistent about KOReader displaying the actual size publisher (or users) chose for their book covers. it would only be inconsistent (not consistent) if it did in some cases but not others.

[noxhirsch]

I see the word 'consistent' being used to mean same size..?

I'd say this means "consistent to each other" (not "consistent to the same cover on other places") - but as I'm not a native English speaker, I do not know the subtleties of the language and have only copied the wording. Is "Force same size covers" a better fit for you?

not sure about others, but I definitely can.

That's why I highlighted "almost" :) Depending on the content on the cover I'll see it, too - but it bothers me way less than when every cover is a different size. And that's why it absoluetly should be an option and not the default (but it is the default without any option to disable it on Onyx Boox devices, and I never read any complaints).

[tymmej]

Because there is a very strong objection against stretching covers (even if there's option to stretch screensaver) and the mentioned performance problems in review which I cannot solve I see no point in resolving other issues in PR and pushing further this idea.

I'll stick with modifying 4 lines of code locally.

[hius07]

Thinking about it, we also have to look at the List view, where thumbnails are displayed with different width.

[poire-z]

More comments and a user patch in #11838 (comment), for those who want to try it - and use it in the long run, and see what else would be needed for a perfect experience - and see how really valuable it is, before we maybe get more involved with the more tedious other needed changes.