Sign in
Microsoft.com
 
Microsoft
 
 
 

locked
Better remote photo access solution? RRS feed

 > 

  • Question

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    I was wondering if there is a better alternative or way to tweak my WHS site to allow better management/access of my photos. I am looking to have a similiar interface to online photo sharing sites (windows live photos for example) but without having to upload all 50 gigs of my photos to the internet over a .5 mbit upload connection. Its rather a pain now to find photos on the website through the 11 pages of folders. So i'll throw out a few specific questions, but any additional advice/suggestions would be appreciated.

    1) Would it be possible to change the default view on the website to automatically show ALL files as opposed to having to select "Show all" each time?

    2) Can i disable the "Preparing your file for download" thing. Its a nice feauture, but not for photos. When I click on one of my photos, I dont want to download the entire file. I simply want to view it directly in the browser.

    3) For example, is there any way to just view smaller sizes of my photos when i click on them as opposed to downloading the whole thing. (I understand that I could simply resize EVERY photo I have and create an alternate directory and view them that way, but that means i would have to resize every picture I take = not effecient)

    4) Maybe it would be easier to create a seperate website for this, but I am not familiar with website creation or anything like that.

    Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks guys!
    Friday, December 12, 2008 8:09 PM

Answers

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    The whiist add-in (see the developer's forum for more details) has the ability to create a photo gallery, I believe. The WHS remote access web site itself isn't really intended to be used as a photo gallery; it's a file management/access tool. 
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    • Marked as answer by s.morrow Friday, December 12, 2008 8:49 PM
    • Unmarked as answer by s.morrow Friday, December 12, 2008 8:49 PM
    • Proposed as answer by T. HeadrickMicrosoft employee Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:56 PM
    • Marked as answer by s.morrow Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:07 PM
    Friday, December 12, 2008 8:15 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    The whiist add-in (see the developer's forum for more details) has the ability to create a photo gallery, I believe. The WHS remote access web site itself isn't really intended to be used as a photo gallery; it's a file management/access tool. 
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    • Marked as answer by s.morrow Friday, December 12, 2008 8:49 PM
    • Unmarked as answer by s.morrow Friday, December 12, 2008 8:49 PM
    • Proposed as answer by T. HeadrickMicrosoft employee Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:56 PM
    • Marked as answer by s.morrow Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:07 PM
    Friday, December 12, 2008 8:15 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Excellent. I will try that when I get home.

    Now I have another questions, which I already know the answer to, but am going to ask anyway in case there is something i dont know.

    I shoot all of my photos in RAW format, and I realize that the point of RAW format is to edit your photos before publishing them. But i am lazy and just simply do not convert all of my photos from RAW format after I take them. Is there any possible way to view these RAW files remotely from the website? I have the plug-in in Windows to view them, so thats not a problem. But what about a way to view them in the website along with my jpegs?

    Thanks
    Friday, December 12, 2008 8:48 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Hi,
    that's my problem as well - I also take a lot of pictures in RAW, and storing them in both formats takes a lot of space (deleting the RAW pictures is not an option).
    But until now RAW is still a stepchild for Microsoft developers it seems, since also Media Center is unable to show these pictures even with the plugin installed.
    And the big size of RAW files makes it also impossible to download a bunch of them via WHS remote access.
    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf
    Friday, December 12, 2008 8:54 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    RAW format is not a "standard". Every manufacturer has their own way of encoding pixel data within a RAW file. As a result, there is no standardised way to display this data; it requires somewhat sophisticated processing to be able to render the file on screen.

    So no, there is no way to view RAW files on the web site. Microsoft would have to support an ever-increasing number of file formats, and I don't see that as likely.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Friday, December 12, 2008 9:17 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Well they already do it for their Windows platforms so it would not be too difficult. If I can view the file directly from Windows, would it not be possible for the server to offer up the image file presented directly in the OS to the website? I guess this would involve how the windows RAW codecs work though. The only way I see this working is if the windows RAW codec actually creates a jpg or other similiar format image when it displays it directly in the OS, because it would have to be an image compatible with the browser and browsers obviously dont support direct RAW decoding. So this does seem like a difficult feat, but I definitely dont think its impossible. Possibly a piece of software that quickly converts the RAW file to a small jpg when requested by the server.

    Any hardcore photographers / software developers out there? haha.
    Friday, December 12, 2008 9:26 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Microsoft doesn't create the RAW format converters; camera manufacturers do. If you're thinking of Microsoft's downloadable RAW image thumbnailer and viewer for XP and Vista, that's basically a framework that a properly written image converter can plug into. It includes converters for some popular cameras, but those converters were supplied by the manufacturers. It's not, in any case, designed to extend a web site. It's intended to extend the Windows "shell", the GUI that you spend your time in.

    It would certainly be possible to create a component that would allow viewing RAW files over the web. I just don't know how much call there is for such a thing. I also don't know how fast it would be; a RAW file contains every bit of data that came off the image sensor, and it has to be processed extensively for viewing.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Friday, December 12, 2008 11:19 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    I'm surprised Ken didn't provide a linky :)

    As Ken mentioned RAW isn't a standard file format.  It's simply how the camera manufacturers interpret & store the values that the image sensors provide.  The formats themselves change camera to camera (even of the same make) and you're dependent on the manufacturer supporting their own older RAW formats.

    You may be doing yourself a favor by converting the RAW images into an uncompressed standard format that supports the dynamic range that the RAW file supports for safe keeping.  (i.e. tiff)  Even then, if you have a high dynamic range tiff, you'll be limited in image browser support.

    The premise for taking RAW photos is to prevent the camera from doing any further processing of the image data (i.e. denoise, white balance, etc...).  Once you have the RAW image, converting it to a more readable image shouldn't do any processing either.

    As mentioned, the whiist add in is a good start for a photo browser.  Of course security breaches become a bigger possibility.
    Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:05 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    s.morrow said:

    Well they already do it for their Windows platforms so it would not be too difficult. If I can view the file directly from Windows, would it not be possible for the server to offer up the image file presented directly in the OS to the website? I guess this would involve how the windows RAW codecs work though. The only way I see this working is if the windows RAW codec actually creates a jpg or other similiar format image when it displays it directly in the OS, because it would have to be an image compatible with the browser and browsers obviously dont support direct RAW decoding. So this does seem like a difficult feat, but I definitely dont think its impossible. Possibly a piece of software that quickly converts the RAW file to a small jpg when requested by the server.

    Any hardcore photographers / software developers out there? haha.

    I'm a little late to this thread but I had to comment.

    I'm not sure the processing time prior to display for each image would be the best if you were attempting to convert each image prior to viewing in a browser. Also, anything that will process the files quickly on the server will more than likely provide questionable quality. You generally do this type of processing with higher quality image editing programs or the applications that shipped with the camera. So again, the trade off, quick or quality.

    You could either create the thumbnails ahead of time or do not make the RAW images available at all and only serve out jpgs which will help both performance and your bandwidth.  Unless you've got a business package, I wouldn't be serving out RAW/large images from your house.  I would imagine that it would kill your upload speed.  My RAW files are about 10MB each. There's no way I'd put those up. Plus, your family and friends don't need RAW files and won't know what to do with them without the codecs. Be nice and give them the smaller, processed files.

    You can use the application that came with your DSLR to process the images in a batch file and save them at the appropriate quality level. It's really easy. In the Nikon app, it's three steps if you don't make any corrections. As you and others have pointed out, RAW is not designed to be used as a web solution. It is for you, the photographer, to use when editing your images. It provides you with the best image possible while also providing the most latitude with which to work. It is the most forgivable format in terms of exposure but not necessarily the best as far as size and compatibility.

    Lara Jones [MSFT] Windows Home Server Team
    Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:28 AM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Hi Lara,
    at least the Canon RAW files have a JPG image already embedded, I don't know about other cameras.
    Besides that - storing duplicates from pictures is nothing I generally like, especially with pictures now taking up about 8 MByte or more each in high resolution (independent, if RAW or a high resolution JPG picture). The benefit of RAW pictures is still the lossless saving of picture information, which allows to gain better results after editing with RAW capable apps without any quality loss. And since improved apps may help to get even more out of valuable pictures in the future, throwing the RAWs away is not an option.
    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf
    Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:00 AM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Olaf Engelke said:

    Hi Lara,
    at least the Canon RAW files have a JPG image already embedded, I don't know about other cameras.
    Besides that - storing duplicates from pictures is nothing I generally like, especially with pictures now taking up about 8 MByte or more each in high resolution (independent, if RAW or a high resolution JPG picture). The benefit of RAW pictures is still the lossless saving of picture information, which allows to gain better results after editing with RAW capable apps without any quality loss. And since improved apps may help to get even more out of valuable pictures in the future, throwing the RAWs away is not an option.
    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf


    Wow. so if your right about Canon RAW's storing jpegs embedded in them, then thats exactly what I was thinking. Which means it would be very simple to view what a RAW image contains over the web with the right knowledge and coding power. Interesting. Still doesnt mean it will ever happen for us though.

    And agreed on storing duplicates of all of my pictures. 50 gigs of pictures, each with a duplicate = a huge mess. It would be very simple to create smaller sized duplicates of each and store them in seperate folders, but I have a hard enough time as it is sorting through my photos. Would never want to throw duplicates of everything in there.
    Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:08 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Olaf Engelke said:

    Hi Lara,
    at least the Canon RAW files have a JPG image already embedded, I don't know about other cameras.
    Besides that - storing duplicates from pictures is nothing I generally like, especially with pictures now taking up about 8 MByte or more each in high resolution (independent, if RAW or a high resolution JPG picture). The benefit of RAW pictures is still the lossless saving of picture information, which allows to gain better results after editing with RAW capable apps without any quality loss. And since improved apps may help to get even more out of valuable pictures in the future, throwing the RAWs away is not an option.
    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf



    Hi Olaf,

    I think there is a misunderstanding. It was not my suggestion that the user discard the RAW files after processing the images to jpg. The jpg would be the images to host online while retaining the RAW images for editing and archiving. The jpgs would be much smaller in size than the RAW images simply because the JPG compression would reduce the image size.

    I never, ever delete my RAW images. It's just that, in my opinion, posting a RAW file online for friends and family is not a good idea.
    Lara Jones [MSFT] Windows Home Server Team
    Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:07 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Lara Jones said:
    I never, ever delete my RAW images.

    Personally, I convert them to Adobe DNG and discard the original compressed RAW files. But the DNG file effectively contains exactly the same data as the (proprietary) RAW file, it's just in an open format.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:15 PM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Have you looked at jalbum at http://jalbum.net?  It will load up your images and create all sorts of themed web sites, which you should be able to self-host on your WHS box.  I haven't actually tried it, mind you, but in theory it should work.

    Unfortunately, I don't think it natively handles raw images.  One of these days, I'm going to write some kind of vartual folder driver to automatically render jpg images from a folder of raw ones...

    Rich
    Sunday, December 28, 2008 1:52 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Holy wow...

    That is exactly what I was looking for. That is the best software I have seen in a long time. The tiltviewer thing is amazing, and its all free. Hard to believe. If you guys have not checked this out, you should. I love Whiist, but this easy to use album creator blows Whiist built in one out of the water. Although, this Jalbum + Whiist combined make a mean combination for hosting a professional and EASY photo page.

    Thanks for the find.
    Sunday, December 28, 2008 6:49 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Hosting my own albums is on my perpetual todo list, so please let me know if you try this out and how it works out for you.

    Thanks,
    Rich
    Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:36 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    @ rsteele:
    I set up a Coppermine gallery on my WHS early last year - free, works well, simple to admin, and not too difficult to do the initial install & configuration.
    Only downside:  I could not, for the life of me, get Coppermine to read anything in \public\photos, and mucking around with NTFS permissions on the shares is, well, not a good idea.
    My 'workaround' was to set up the gallery (as well as its image files) on a non-pooled HDD (wee little 20GB drive that I had kicking around.)

    It works for me,
    Chris

    [If this post helps to resolve your issue, please click the "Mark as Answer" or "Helpful" button at the top of this message. By marking a post as Answered, or Helpful you help others find the answer faster.]
    Wednesday, December 31, 2008 4:55 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    rsteele said:

    Hosting my own albums is on my perpetual todo list, so please let me know if you try this out and how it works out for you.

    Thanks,
    Rich


    I used that Jalbum thing you mentioned and it works like a charm. I have been looking for a program exactly like this for months now, and Im glad you shared this. All you have to do is drop the photos you want to use in the program and choose your theme and it does everything for you. Of course if you want to make a full featured website to display all of your nice albums, you will need a bit more HTML/web design knowledge, but it did not take me long to figure it all out.

    But as far as creating the actual album, I could not ask for anything better than this. Its awesome. There are plenty of previews on the website, but if you want to take a look at what I created you can check out this link. (Be sure to check out the "stack images" link as well when you get there) http://people.tamu.edu/~steviejoe_m/album/index.html

    For bandwidth purposes i copied my album over to my schools free website, but I am actually hosting this on my WHS for friends and family. Its gonna be a pretty sweet little set up once i get the website tuned up.
    Wednesday, December 31, 2008 7:34 AM