Расширение Synology Image Assistant

aadgfjmilhfblodmkgilohhjlakchfmg

Просматривайте файлы HEIC, HEVC и других форматов с помощью Synology Image Assistant.

Latest reviews

• (2025-06-29) Andrew Anderson: A truly pathetic excuse of a software. "Wanna see this commonly used file? Just install this extension, and this side-application that is 450mb(!!??)" Are you mental? You need 3 pieces of software running on the NAS, in the browser and the OS just to view a picture using one of the common formats? And you need HALF A GIGABYTE worth of a software to convert a picture? This needs to be a case study of how to fail your userbase. I feel second-hand embarrassment for whoever thought this shower-thought would be a good idea to ship to users.
• (2025-06-22) Piotr Karny: I'm ok with installing any external extension to process the images if this makes things faster... but this is overcomplicated. I don't see a point that I need to have an additional browser extension here. All can be done on backend. HEVC format won't go away and this just makes Synology look bad.
• (2025-06-17) Thomas Harris: Synology are clearly trying to distance themselves from the home NAS purchaser.
• (2025-06-15) Pierpaolo Tommasi: Glad I'm not the online one who doesn't like how Synology is going forward.
• (2025-06-12) Chris Cuddy: Seriously?! Please keep the NAS environment self-contained and don't require changes to the client side. Especially with Synology Photos which can be your killer app for average consumers.
• (2025-06-10) Daniel Dysentrieb: This is completely ridiculous and not what I have paid for. Very bad user experience.
• (2025-06-03) Franky S: Not working
• (2025-05-25) Brijesh Patel: Useless
• (2025-04-26) Eyewanders Foto: No. Just absolutely, no.
• (2025-04-24) Sergiu Falcusan: Dissapointing! This is not the correct solution!
• (2025-03-26) Chris Johnson: Not only is this a bad solution and downgrade from past capabilities, but it also requires both an extension and an .exe file. Linux desktops can't use this solution. This means its not an option (or requires a windows emulation) to run on my primary desktop. Not a solution and not acceptable.
• (2025-03-15) Dan Robichaud-Carew: Supremely idiotic that this is required.
• (2025-03-12) King Chan: I am extremely disappointed with Synology's latest update, DSM 7.2.2, particularly with their decision to offload media transcoding and processing to client devices. A NAS is supposed to function as a server, handling heavy workloads like media transcoding, so that clients (which are often less powerful) don’t have to bear the burden. Synology’s move to shift this responsibility to clients feels like a step backward and a cost-cutting measure at the expense of user experience. The whole point of investing in a NAS is to centralize tasks and reduce the load on individual devices. By offloading media processing to clients, Synology is essentially passing the buck, forcing users to rely on their own devices' capabilities. This is especially problematic for users with older or less powerful devices, which will struggle with the added processing demands. What’s the point of having a high-end NAS if it can’t handle basic server tasks like media transcoding? While Synology claims that this change improves thumbnail processing performance by 2.5 times, this feels like a band-aid solution rather than addressing the core issue. A NAS should be optimized to handle these tasks internally, not rely on external devices to pick up the slack. This update makes me question the value of Synology’s hardware and software, especially when competitors are offering solutions that truly leverage the power of a NAS as a server. Overall, this decision feels like a misstep for Synology. If I wanted my clients to handle media processing, I wouldn’t have invested in a NAS in the first place. I hope Synology reconsiders this approach and refocuses on making their NAS devices true servers, capable of handling the workloads they were designed for. Until then, I cannot recommend this update or Synology’s current direction.
• (2025-03-06) Emiliano Elías: Not a smart move from Synology. This extensions creates white thumbnails for all my images. Now i have to recreate them without the extension. It used to work so good before this (on the NAS). Why the change? no one likes this.
• (2025-02-17) Attila Kovacs: IDIOTS, INTEGRATE THE CODEC INTO THE LINUX
• (2025-02-07) Michael Astrauskas: It's unclear why this extension is needed. I'd use my own hardware and software if I didn't expect a comprehensive storage solution from Synology.
• (2025-02-03) Arif Topcu: Garbage. Really hope they go back to processing on the NAS itself.
• (2025-01-30) Joseph Holst: Dear Synology, you guys should really be ashamed. Talk about tarnishing your brand and image.
• (2025-01-25) Damian Bielawski: Sorry but no. This is not acceptable Synology... stop treating people like a joke.
• (2025-01-21) Klaus Fleischer: Next NAS won't be Synology
• (2025-01-13) Jonathan Chew: An absolute disappointment given that photo backup is the primary feature that many people use the NAS for, and this is what we paid for. All for marginal savings for Synology, the customers clearly aren't being prioritised.
• (2025-01-10) D Miller: Outrageous. And doesn't work even after installing along with the Chrome extension as per the release notes. Synology - you are ALIENATING your previously LOYAL CUSTOMERS and are DAMAGING YOUR BRAND!
• (2025-01-09) Christophe Marois: Absolutely unacceptable
• (2025-01-07) Onno Haazer: GREED
• (2025-01-03) Kelcey Smith: It's ridiculous that I even need to install this. This is not an acceptable solution, Synology.
• (2025-01-03) Karolis S.: It is really a shame that you pay premium for synology devices and then learn that they are cheap on codecs... They make you download additional extensions on your device to view photos/videos. The biggest problem as that these kind of things are not disclosed clearly.
• (2024-12-22) Paul Ragot: This extension is a shame ! The user experience is terrible, and it's not what I expected from a brand like Synology. The extension ask me to download their application and I got a .exe file even if I'm using Linux ... Everything worked fine before, please Synology consider buying a license for CODEC.
• (2024-12-18) Ryan Clodfelter: Long time synology customer - this type of behavior in product development is what will make me look for another product next time around. Compelling Synology to reconsider this for those of us who have HEIC heavy libraries. This is also the way of future storage. Stop making me convert a million files to jpg backups. I'd even pay for the CODEC. This is really shameful.
• (2024-12-11) Josue Arguelles: Synology is so disappointing
• (2024-12-06) Jan: Synology, shame on you!
• (2024-12-05) Brian McMullan: It is kind of silly that Synology eliminated Photostation and Videostation in 7.2.2. But, there is a work around for Video Station at least. Not mine, just sharing https://github.com/007revad/Video_Station_for_DSM_722.
• (2024-12-01) Valery Meleshkin: Not only this is an absolutely incredibly cheap workaround for a company that is supposed to sell "it just works" solutions, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
• (2024-11-30) Kieran Duncan: Insane that this is even necessary... Offloading processing to other devices? Then why the hell does my NAS have a processor if not to process things? Now it sits unutilised, and I have to install a browser extension AND desktop app on my devices in order to preview images remotely? No amount of "This is good for the customer because...." BS can justify this one in my view, it's completely against the easy UX I had come to expect from Synology. If it was truly an "improvement" they could at least give us the option to toggle it.
• (2024-11-27) Philipp Weixlbaumer: This is unacceptable! We use our NAS to share an image gallery of our kids to my family all over the country and i won't ask them to install browser extensions. There has to be at least the option to get the old behaviour back (for a small licence fee)
• (2024-11-19) Andrew: 5 stars to balance everyone else out. at least their engineers provided a solution so we don't pay licensing fees which would lower the quality of the hardware we buy. most synology users would rather pay for Top Quality Hardware and Forever Software than have our purchase payments go to licenses for everyone who is a heavy photo user. I agree, they need to make this more streamlined such that the privacy of the extension is not needing to "see all websites all data" which is creepy. Just let us select which URLs it can access (photos). No need for unnecessary permissions, we trust you synology but why ask for stuff you don't need to know?
• (2024-11-14) Igor Lubashev: To the "engineer" who gave this 5-stars and is condecending to the users by lecturing about space vs quality trade-offs, I would like to remind them that "working" is also a "feature" and likely the most important feature there is. I have dozens of devices, owned by different people with different skills -- the devices I do not control. There will be other devices in the future. If something does not work with a browser "out of the box" (including a slightly not cutting-edge browser or OS -- some devices are several years old and poorly maintained), it just does not work. You may be living in a walled garden of your own creation, and it is fine to have certain assumption about it. But real world is not your walled garden, and you cannot make it any different by wishing so. The caveat to the above is that if you have a near-monolopy power (like Google with Chrome), you could bend the world to your wishes -- you can remove a feature and force enough pain on the captive audience that they adjust (vendors adjust). But if you are merely Synology, you just piss off users, lose good will (existing users will not upgrade to your newer products; positive media mentions and word-of-mouth decline so fewer new users), and damage your brand and business. You have real competitors (unlike Google Chrome).
• (2024-11-12) Jimmy Wan: Absurd downgrade to require browser extension AND a desktop app to perform basic functionality. What's the point of having a CPU on a NAS if it has to offload everything to a desktop? I might as well just build my own PC to replace the NAS.
• (2024-11-09) Bob McNally: Disappointing Downgrade and now much more complicated
• (2024-11-09) Wojtek: Instead NAS doing the work you can move the burden of generating thumbnails to your computer. This way NAS stays almost idle. Love it. Great idea. Such smart. I am already buying next Synology NAS and telling all my friends and family to do so. Much satisfaction. So removing features I paid for.
• (2024-11-03) Jimmy Tham: Doesn't work as intended
• (2024-10-29) Luke Nelson: I now need an app AND a browser extension to view modern files? No thank you.
• (2024-10-28) Tomasz Purtak: Guys, commenting here, you don't understant codecs. Having no clue, right ? Okay, see, this solution works better. First of all, media is sent across the network in the compressed way, rather then in less efficient in size package, that the NAS had to "unpack it" to. So you had to choose among qualities when playing it back, because it was downgraded, to ratain smaller network throughput or if you happened to chose the original quality - the bandwith demand was grater. What it resulted with in practice ? Your media clients , basically your friends or people you shared with, either had received streaming with degraded quality or with stuttering/pauses, due to network limitation. Now: this is improved , as their devices will get the compressed format with better quality, such as HEVC is. Okay, and next thing - NAS is released from that heavy task of conversion all the time, if you had it on. So relax, and trust the engineers. Yes, it is small hassle to install that Sylonogy Image Assistant deskto app and a browser extension. So what ? Gain is enormous. Cheers.
• (2024-10-24) Max Pack: For $5 they’ve disgusted people who invest hundreds/thousands in their products. Absolute joke...
• (2024-10-24) Vlad Chizh: This is sadness and frustration. Seriously, they could have at least offered the decoding feature for an additional $5, but not this hoop-jumping. Shame!
• (2024-10-23) Kurt: You should be ashamed, Synology!!!!!
• (2024-10-22) Brian Bentham: Users are a lot smarter than Synology is giving them credit for, and it's super-obvious to anyone with a brain Synology jsut doesn't want to pay for the codecs to run on the NAS anymore. It's ridiculous to have to install a background application on the PC and browser extension in each browser, just to get exactly the same functionality which used to reside on my NAS. This is yet another example of a company retroactively changing the features of a product I purchased from them a long time ago.
• (2024-10-18) John Inwood: Cant believe I am having to do this... Just charge a $5 for the codec
• (2024-09-25) Yves Chan: This is not what I paid for
• (2024-09-15) J. K.: Why are features we're used to using being removed? Definitely a downgrade
• (2024-09-12) Derek: Come on! Get better! I want to fully utilize this over Google Photos.