french translation

whatever you choose, I simply used google translate so don’t take mine as reference :slight_smile:

I suggest level instead of range but not really very different.

@carafife, @sguyader, what do you think of my last proposition about false color translation ?
Merci de vos avis.

I don’t really know. In fact I was wondering what “IRE” means. From reading the IRE wikipedia I would not use the term “IRE” as it will not speak to 99% of the users.
I would call it “False color tonal map”, in French something like “Plage tonale en fausses couleurs”.

And yet, it’s the standard term used in video, where the false colors view is typically used… Just try googling for “false colors IRE”

Sure, but how many ART users are used to standard video terms?
It was just my 2 cts, any term is fine by me, now that I know what IRE means.

Not many I suppose, but then they won’t be familiar with the false color view either. And as soon as you start searching information about it, it will talk about IRE values… I had no idea what IRE meant until a couple of days ago btw, I learnt when implementing the false color view. So, I think it’s the proper terminology. (Just like using Ev when you talk about exposure compensation, for example)

1 Like

So are you OK for level ? and a translation like Niveaux IRE ?

On a side note, leaving in the caribbean where most people have a large range of rather dark skin tones, I’d like to know where “dark skin tone” falls within the IRE scale. “Skin tone” unofrtunately always in restricted to “caucasian skin tone” only…

Yes, you are totally correct. That’s why I changed the tooltip yesterday :slight_smile:
From my investigations, the “skin zones” are the gray ones in the false color view. For black people, that should be around the darkest one (so in the 20-42 range)

1 Like

I prefer “range” and “plage” or “étendue” because when I see “levels” ou “niveaux” I think just of intensity values. With “range” or “étendue” I think more of how the levels are distributed.
But if the English is “levels”, then translate to “niveaux”. Or “Range” to “Plage”/“Etendue”.

OK i agree with your proposal, and I think “Plage” is a good formulation.

May I suggest “Image” instead of “comme image” that is : sacrify a (small) translation accuracy to avoid the cut (or having to dramatically extend the size of the panel) ?

1 Like

By the way, I do not find “rognage” to be the best choosen word. It’s the exact perfect translation, yes, but anyone using it on behalf of “recadrage” ?
Just a personnal opinion…

You are right, I chosen “Rognage” as it has been already use in Digikam, but if it is desired by users I can easily move to recadrage.

1 Like

Bonjour à tous,
Un tout petit soucis de raccourci clavier qui perdure de versions en versions. J’avais ouvert un ticket mais je sais tout le boulot de suivi que ça représente. Je le remet ici pour mémoire/
Merci encore pour le boulot accompli! :wave:

Alberto à l’intention de publier prochainement la version 1.8 de ART. il a introduit dans le module Lissage un nouveau mode intitulé MODE_GAUSSIAN_GLOW;Glow (ligne 1789 du fichier default.
J’envisage de traduire Glow par Lueur.
Une discussion à déjà eu lieu ici :slight_smile:

Avez vous une idée ?

Hi @srgmro, you might consider asking in the ART French forum if you haven’t done so yet…

Yes Alberto, I am waiting for any suggestion and discussion.

En ayant essayé, je trouve qu’il y a plus un effet de halo comme quand on a de la buée sur les lunettes (merci les masques!) qu’un effet de brillance. Mais je n’ai pas fait beaucoup d’essais.
Les parties brillantes s’étalent et débordent sur les parties plus sombres comme un halo de diffraction. Je ne pense pas que l’on parle de lueur dans ce cas.
Mais je ne crois pas que le choix soit critique.