Hide mouse-pointer in Fullscreen

Christoph

Hi Karl,
it would be nice if the mouse-pointer would be hidden in fullscreen together with the interface. I'm using files for Anaglyph 3D-images and the pointer disturbs the view.
Thank you and best regards,
Christoph

Karl

Christoph it would be nice if the mouse-pointer would be hidden in fullscreen together with the interface.

I'm actually not quite sure what you mean "together with the interface" ... You mean the browser interface? Hiding the mouse-pointer is normally regarded as a "no no" because users can get annoyed if they don't know where their mouse cursor is ... And when you say "fullscreen", do you specifically mean after clicking the fullscreen-button? Or are you referring to the "popup" after clicking an image?

You could add the following into _files/css/custom.css (see css styling):

.is-fullscreen {
  cursor: none;
}

This might not work in all browsers, and when mouse is over clickable items (which is often the case, especially in the popup), then "pointer" cursor will still gain priority and still be visible. You could try a more aggressive approach:

.is-fullscreen * {
  cursor: none !important;
}

This isn't generally recommended, but it probably works. Most users, including myself, will simply move the mouse cursor to the edge/corner of screen if they find it distracting.

Christoph

Thank you,
I meant the view in fullscreen. The controls and informations don't disappear if I move the cursor to the edge or corner of the screen becase they get triggered from there (e.g. the arrows). They just disappear if the cursor is somewhere in the middle. Maybe I just remove the IPTC etc. Information at the bottom of the view. Btw. - the exif-informations show wrong values for the exposure time in some places. Like here: https://www.nachtexpeditionen.de/alben/?Nachtexpeditionen%202021/01%20Diepental%203D/2D/Christoph%20M%C3%BCller#pid=bild010.jpg - exposure-time was 30 seconds.

Best regards,
Christoph

Karl

Christoph The controls and informations don't disappear if I move the cursor to the edge or corner of the screen becase they get triggered from there (e.g. the arrows).

I'm not quite sure what you are asking for. Hiding the mouse cursor is not the same as "disabling mouse", which is not possible of course. If you want to block specific interface elements from even showing, this would have to be done by CSS on a per-element basis. I don't quite see the point though, unless you want to always hide these elements (regardless of mouse/cursor).

Christoph Btw. - the exif-informations show wrong values for the exposure time in some places.

If it's wrong, it's wrong from your camera or from some application you are using to edit EXIF. I checked with exif-viewer.com, and your first image is returning ExposureTime 10000/10000 ... check yourself. To me, it looks like you have some app for editing EXIf that is corrupting the EXIF and creating lots of duplicate values ... It even lists Model and Make as -- ... Either these values should remain EMPTY, or they should get populated by the camera that takes the shots. Incorrect EXIF output is not from Files gallery, but from your own EXIF values.

Christoph

Hi Karl,

it think for me it would make sense to block interface elements. In 3D the mouse pointer is a little more disturbing than in 2D. And if there's a full 16:9 image on the display, the naviagtion elements are always visible if you move the pointer to the left of right edge of the screen. Not really a big problem, maybe it's the best to hide the information-popup at the bottom.
The linked image is just the direct output of a developed RAW (done with DxO) with no further editing. The exif should be okay, an the exposure time is shown correctly in other apps like the Windows Photo-App.

Best regards,
Christoph

Karl

Christoph it think for me it would make sense to block interface elements. In 3D the mouse pointer is a little more disturbing than in 2D. And if there's a full 16:9 image on the display, the naviagtion elements are always visible if you move the pointer to the left of right edge of the screen.

You can do that with custom CSS if you have a plan. You need to be very careful of course, because by blocking interface elements, you are blocking the visitors from being able to interact.

Christoph The linked image is just the direct output of a developed RAW (done with DxO) with no further editing. The exif should be okay, an the exposure time is shown correctly in other apps like the Windows Photo-App.

I deep tested this image, and EXIF is corrupted with unicode issues. I'm pretty sure you using some editor that is messing with these fields, because no camera would do that. It's ok that a dedicated desktop app can read this, but when you are asking PHP to read these values into JSON for usage in a website, you need to avoid corrupt formatting. The file size of your EXIF output is 60 kb (that's a massive amount of data). I can't paste it all, but here are some outtakes:

Notice: exif_read_data(bild010.jpeg): Potentially invalid endianess, trying again with different endianness before imminent failure. in /Users/karlward/sites/x3/content/exif/exif-viewer.php on line 4
...
Warning: Array to string conversion in /Users/karlward/sites/x3/content/exif/exif-viewer.php on line 7
MAKERNOTE.UndefinedTag:0x0020: Array
...
MAKERNOTE.UndefinedTag:0x0060: ���������������,���� L��@�T��\���� �d�!���"���#���$���%��(� ��0� ��1� �2� (�3� L�4� \�5�l�6�t�@�|�A���B�4�C���H���P� �Q�<�R�h�S���T���U� ��V� ��W� �a������1353489<�:652101//-...015420-..,--..-.-068740.---,,,./0/2=C:50--.--.,-
// the above goes on and masses almost 50kb ...
...
EXIF.ExposureTime: 20/1
// seems correct ...
...
MAKERNOTE.ExposureTime: 0/0
// but you also have the above, which you or your app is adding.

You can try this yourself by using the super simply PHP script here:
https://write.corbpie.com/getting-image-exif-data-with-php/

I can see that it works in your app, but I can't resolve EXIF that has been modified and has clear issues that affects how PHP reads it.

Christoph

Karl You need to be very careful of course, because by blocking interface elements, you are blocking the visitors from being able to interact.

I just meant the overlay with filename and exif-/IPTC-informations.

Christoph

I thinks it's the way Samsung-NX-Cameras write EXIF-Information and not "currupted" (https://exiv2.org/tags-samsung.html). As I said - the images have just been developed with DxO-Photolab and been exported from there. You can see that the ExposureTime-Field is correct. And then some Samsung-Specific-Makernotes. But never mind - for me it's no big problem ;-)!

Karl

Christoph I just meant the overlay with filename and exif-/IPTC-informations.

I think I got the idea, but what are you asking? Do you want me to provide some CSS code that simply disabled the caption in the popup? That would not be a problem.

Christoph P.S: You can load the image into ExifTool (Online-Version: https://exif.tools/), which is highly recommended for testing images EXIF-Metadata. And it shows 0 errors.

It's not about errors. Errors can easily be avoided, just like they already are in Files gallery. Problem is, there are some PHP-specific issues from reading the massive amount of EXIF that has been embedded into that image from your Photolab app. I'm sure there are ways to avoid this, also in PHP, but it would require much more application logic to parse this image's massive EXIF output without stumbling on the ones not needed. Besides, I don't quite see why this EXIF app should be injecting 50kb worth of EXIF info into the image that nobody is supposed to see? It's kinda pointless, and no camera's will ever create EXIF like this ...

Christoph I thinks it's the way Samsung-NX-Cameras write EXIF-Information and not "currupted" (https://exiv2.org/tags-samsung.html). As I said - the images have just been developed with DxO-Photolab and been exported from there. You can see that the ExposureTime-Field is correct. And then some Samsung-Specific-Makernotes. But never mind - for me it's no big problem ;-)!

It's definitely not the Samsung-NX that is creating all the EXIF "junk", it's definitely DxO-Photolab. I already tested other images from Samsung-NX, and they output nicely. Cameras will never create strange excessive EXIF data like in your images.

Here is a sample from from Samsung-NX:
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS1200x900~sample_galleries/2863271451/6590900845.jpg

It produces a clean minimal EXIF output with all data in tact:

FILE.FileName: bild010.jpeg
FILE.FileDateTime: 1662465407
FILE.FileSize: 513443
FILE.FileType: 2
FILE.MimeType: image/jpeg
FILE.SectionsFound: ANY_TAG, IFD0, EXIF
COMPUTED.html: width="1200" height="800"
COMPUTED.Height: 800
COMPUTED.Width: 1200
COMPUTED.IsColor: 1
COMPUTED.ByteOrderMotorola: 1
COMPUTED.ApertureFNumber: f/9.0
IFD0.Make: SAMSUNG
IFD0.Model: NX1
IFD0.Exif_IFD_Pointer: 58
EXIF.ExposureTime: 1/80
EXIF.FNumber: 90/10
EXIF.ISOSpeedRatings: 800
EXIF.DateTimeOriginal: 2014:01:20 10:35:25
EXIF.DateTimeDigitized: 2014:01:20 10:35:25
EXIF.ShutterSpeedValue: 6321928/1000000
EXIF.ApertureValue: 633985/100000
EXIF.ExposureBiasValue: 0/10
EXIF.MaxApertureValue: 298/100
EXIF.MeteringMode: 5
EXIF.LightSource: 10
EXIF.Flash: 0
EXIF.FocalLength: 50/1
EXIF.ExposureMode: 0
EXIF.WhiteBalance: 1

Christoph

P.S: You can load the image into ExifTool (Online-Version: https://exif.tools/), which is highly recommended for testing images EXIF-Metadata. And it shows 0 errors.

Karl

It's only a few of your images that have this issue, clearly affected by some different process in Photolab. But even ones with minimal EXIF and correct ExposureTime, you still have strange EXIF values. For example Uli Paffrath/bild010.jpg reports Make --:

IFD0.Make: --
IFD0.Model: --
THUMBNAIL.Model: --
THUMBNAIL.Make: --

Your other image (with the errors and incorrectly reported exposureTime) actually has several Make and Model and at least one of them is correct. In the above image however, these values are just wiped and changed to --, as you can see for yourself in exif.tools. Why would any EXIF editor do something like that? Either keep them, or remove them, but changing them to -- makes no sense, and that's why I don't believe this app is entirely logic in the ways it edits EXIF.

Christoph

I really don't know - there are several images made by friends of mine where I can't say how they processed them. But I'm wondering why just the Samsung-images are affected and other images exported from DxO don't have the problem. I'll later inspect how OOC JPG-Images from the Samsung camera behave. But over all thats no real problem for me. What I'm asking is for the css-code for hiding the image-informations under the "lock-symbol". Or maybe it's possible to define let's say a 10 px area on the lower border of the screen where the mouse pointer doesn't trigger it's appearance, so you can hide it there and the complette overlay can fade out. However - thank your very much for your responses! I like your work very much and it's what I've been looking for for a long time!
Best regards,
Christoph

Karl

Christoph But I'm wondering why just the Samsung-images are affected and other images exported from DxO don't have the problem.

I'm not familiar with DxO, but it's definitely this app adding and editing a lot of stuff in your EXIF. I don't know the process, but there is a difference inside your own images, and I assumed it was because you have edited them differently. It seems a bit random, and that's why I am wondering what the idea is ... I have no reason to believe this does not occur with images from non-Samsung cameras, based on some process, which is entirely unknown to me.

Christoph But over all thats no real problem for me.

😃 You said so. I get a bit over-interested with issues like this ...

Christoph Or maybe it's possible to define let's say a 10 px area on the lower border of the screen where the mouse pointer doesn't trigger it's appearance, so you can hide it there and the complette overlay can fade out.

Why you don't move mouse pointer to SIDE of screen instead, so to avoid triggering hover on the caption? The point of locking the caption on mouse hover, is so that the user can easily keep the caption temporarily visible. If you DON'T want to keep the caption visible, the one place you should not hover mouse, is over the caption.

Christoph What I'm asking is for the css-code for hiding the image-informations under the "lock-symbol".

No problem. _files/css/custom.css:

.pswp__caption {
  display: none;
}

Christoph

Karl Christoph But over all thats no real problem for me.

😃 You said so. I get a bit over-interested with issues like this ...

😅 I understand this very well 👍🏼

The point for me with the left or right border is, that the navigation arrows keep being visible. Maybe it's generally possible to hide everything, if the mouse is not being moved.

Best regards!

Karl

Christoph The point for me with the left or right border is, that the navigation arrows keep being visible. Maybe it's generally possible to hide everything, if the mouse is not being moved.

I understand your issue. The problem is that all these interface elements will remain visible on mouse hover for good reason ... If the visitor mouses over the area that defines click "next", it's normally useful that the "next" icon remains visible, to emphasize the action that occurs on click. It's a bit unusual to require a "no-cursor" state, but almost anything is possible with some custom CSS, although it would involve some compromise to the interface ...

For example, we could add some CSS that prevents the caption from remaining visible on mouse hover. And in the same action, we could also hide the cursor. This would mean that you could move mouse over caption, and within a few seconds of inactivity, the caption and cursor would disappear. Of course, this would mean that user can't keep the caption persistently visible, unless the lock it.

Christoph

You've been absolutely right regarding the exif-data. I converted one original raw to jpg and the exposure time was shown correctly. Do you think that it's really a bug I should report to DxO? However, I added the custom css and it looks fine for me! Thank you very much! But your last idea of letting the caption disappear after some time seems to be a good approach.

Karl

Christoph Do you think that it's really a bug I should report to DxO?

I don't know this app, and I don't know the options you have and the actions you are taking. I can say for sure that the output is inconsistent ... For example, why is it overwriting Make and Model? The EXIF is still there, and it's probably still readable if you know what to ignore. I would assume you would want to review why and what it's changing and adding into EXIF? It's not useful. I am not sure what process you are doing in this app in the first place though ...

Christoph

I'm using DxO for RAW-editing/conversion. So all my images are taken in RAW, processed in DxO and exported to JPG from there. I think if the exif is readable, maybe it's somehow possible to filter out just the relevant fields. But for now it's absolutely okay for me to hide it completely. I'm "over-onterested" in such topics, too ;-)! But if I look at all the images from our night-photography-tours - there are so many with wrong time settings etc., that nothing important is missing with hidden captions.

Karl

Christoph I think if the exif is readable, maybe it's somehow possible to filter out just the relevant fields.

I will look into it for next release. It's not technically a bug, but there is no logic to the output of the EXIF from the app ... and nobody here wants it edited like that (not me, not you). for instance, why does it overwrite the Model and Make fields? I don't like patching things that are caused by something that cannot be explained logically by anyone.

Christoph

Karl I don't like patching things that are caused by something that cannot be explained logically by anyone.

Totally agree! I'm a huge fan of minimalism, too ;-)!