Subject:
|
Re: Different quality of pictures between different browsers in Brickshelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2007 17:03:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2821 times
|
| |
|
|
Jim DeVona wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Mike Gallagher wrote:
>
> > In Brickshelf and other websites that have a smaller previews for a picture I
> > have notice a low quality pictures in IE and Firefox. (Unless you click on
> > picture you will not see the correct resolution.)
> >
> > I found a few articles on Lugnet that mention some IE changes and this did not
> > fix this problem.
> >
> > Then I downloaded Apple’s new Safari browser. Much improvement on the previews.
> > They now have the same quality as the full size picture.
>
> Another factor may be Safari's color management:
>
> http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/06/safari_brings_c.html
>
> http://news.com.com/Safari+ushers+in+better+browser+colors/2100-1012-6191815.html?part=dht&tag=nl.e703
>
> Incidentally, I've always been curious about the way Brickshelf has the browser
> scale the full sized image to fit the page. You don't see that too often these
> days. I agree with Tim that unless the full size image is small enough to fit
> the page anyway, it seems like a waste of bandwidth to send it every time. (On
> the other hand, I suppose generating and storing all the intermediate thumbnails
> could be costly as well.)
Yes, resampling is costly when using anything other than linear scaling.
This was the main reason I had to make my gallery script cache the
resampled images, especially when it suddenly has to resample 100 odd
images all at once....
--
Dean Earley, Dee (dean@earlsoft.co.uk)
irc: irc://irc.blitzed.org/
web: http://personal.earlsoft.co.uk
phone: +44 (0)780 8369596
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
