Version: 2.0.0 OS: Linux Some of the thumbnails in a page of .tiff black and white scans are not properly displayed. However, when clicking on it for image viewing, the image is ok, as well as the small thumbnails in the line above the image. See attached screen copies "capture1" to see the thumbnail mode and "capture" to see the image view mode. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Load on directory with black and white .tiff files (scans from a Coolscan scanner). Some thumbnails are broken. Click on one, image is ok, as well as the thumbnails line above. Back in thumbnail view, thumbnails are still broken. Expected Results: All thumbnails shoul be ok.
Created attachment 62774 [details] On the left, broken thumbnails, on the right, all ok in view mode
This is very weird, because the main thumbnail view is built on the same codebase than the one-line thumbnail view. Does this happen only with specific images? Are these always the same images even after a restart? Does pressing F5 help? Are there any error messages on the console while opening the album?
Hello Marcel, I have restarted my computer, then, the thumbnails where ok, excepted 3 of them. Then I pressed F5, as you mentionned, and the 3 thumbnails have been corrected. I'm now doing some tests with other folders. Most of the time, few thumbnails are broken, but it is then repaired when I press F5. So I guess this is ok ? I will let you know if I find out something else (but in the meantime, I had a crash, so I will send a crash report). Best regards. Philippe. Le 12/08/2011 19:32, Marcel Wiesweg a écrit : > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279954 > > > > > > --- Comment #2 from Marcel Wiesweg<marcel wiesweg gmx de> 2011-08-12 17:32:28 --- > This is very weird, because the main thumbnail view is built on the same > codebase than the one-line thumbnail view. > Does this happen only with specific images? Are these always the same images > even after a restart? Does pressing F5 help? Are there any error messages on > the console while opening the album? >
It still valid using 2.4.0 release ? Gilles Caulier
I have not seen this bug since the new releases