Why do graphics on same Netscape look diff. on PC & Mac???
S Varshney
Hello I just wrote up a page using some background GIFs. The page
looks real cool on the Mac version of Netscape 2.0b3 (available at
ftp3.netscape.com in case anyone wants to know).
However, the same page looks completely different on the same version
of Netsape on Win95, with a higher resolution monitor!! The transparency
of the GIF has completely disappeared and the colors are completely diff.
than what I set them up to be on the Macintosh.
Is this a problem with the PC or the GIF file?? Thanks much!!
-suvrit
xsvar...@ccvax.fullerton.edu
Andres Magnusson
RGB to Indexed color, as gif only supports 8-bit images or lesser
colour depth. I usually try to go for 5-bit or fewer colours (fewer
than 32). What is important is that you use adaptive palette and
diffuse the image. As to the transparancy, I'm not quite sure, I
think even the most ancient versions of Netscape recognize gif89
(which includes the transparancy fidus).
AM
Wade E. Masshardt
<j...@pgh.nauticom.net> wrote:
>On my site (noted below), the background looks great on a PC,
>but on my Mac Quadra 840AV at work, the same background GIF is
>VERY dark.
>
>Please, visit my web site on both platforms if possible and
>confirm this. Maybe it's just my Mac at work?
I just looked at your site <http://www.nauticom.net/users/jjo> and the
background looked about as dark as the default Netscape background grey
(and the grey border in the Netscape window.) I am using a PowerMac
7100/80 with an Apple 16 inch monitor with 16 bit (actually 15 bit, but
who is counting) color.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| wa...@macc.wisc.edu WEMas...@eworld.com |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a |
| potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the |
| second coming." |
| - Guy Kawasaki |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Staff
background looked about as dark as the default Netscape background grey
(and the grey border in the Netscape window.) >>
Thanks. On my Quadra, the background is VERY dark. I changed it to a
different background, and all seems well...
--Jim Orlowski
------------------------------------
Staff, Ryno Production, Inc.
500 Market Street, Suite 100
Bridgewater, PA 15009
Phone: (412) 775-9393
Web: http://www.ccia.com/rynopro/
Aron S. Spencer
\I've noticed that, too.
\
\On my site (noted below), the background looks great on a PC,
\but on my Mac Quadra 840AV at work, the same background GIF is
\VERY dark.
\
\Please, visit my web site on both platforms if possible and
\confirm this. Maybe it's just my Mac at work?
\
\Let me know! Thanks...
\
\--
\_________________________________
\JAMES J. ORLOWSKI
\Internet: j...@pgh.nauticom.net
\America OnLine: JamS...@aol.com
\http://www.nauticom.net/users/jjo
Looks fine on my Mac (8100/100 Apple 17" Multiscan)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
| | |
| Aron S. Spencer | mailto:aspe...@nando.net |
| Radix Consulting, Ltd. | (919) 596-0152 phone |
| 1716 Virgil Rd. | (919) 596-0081 fax |
| Durham, NC 27703-9614 | CIS: 75407,125 AOL: Asspencer |
| | |
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
James J. Orlowski
Chris Lilley
>Hello I just wrote up a page using some background GIFs. The page
>looks real cool on the Mac version of Netscape 2.0b3[...] the same page
>looks completely different on Netscape on Win95,[...]the colors are
>completely diff. than what I set them up to be on the Macintosh.
>Is this a problem with the PC or the GIF file?? Thanks much!!
I notice you don't consider for a moment it could be a problem
with the Mac ;-)
The main problem is with the GIF format itself. There is no representation
of the source gamma of the display you created the graphics on. As PCs and
Macs have different system gamma, the mid-tones will be darker, more
contrasty and more saturated than on the Mac.
A second problem is that you probably created that GIF using the Mac
system palette so that Netscape would not dither the image. Obviously,
this trick only works on a system that uses the Mac system palette ;-)
so the PC would give you a dithered image. Netscape dithering and color
allocation is optimised for speed of display, not graphics quality.
--
Chris Lilley, Technical Author and JISC representative to W3C
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Manchester and North HPC Training & Education Centre |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Computer Graphics Unit, Email: Chris....@mcc.ac.uk |
| Manchester Computing Centre, Voice: +44 161 275 6045 |
| Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. Fax: +44 161 275 6040 |
| M13 9PL BioMOO: ChrisL |
| Timezone: UTC URI: http://info.mcc.ac.uk/CGU/staff/lilley/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Brad Dye
when viewed from my sister's PC and another PC at the house of a
friend. The WWW browsers are supposed to be the "esperanto" of the
internet! Another strange thing is that the trade mark symbol shows
up OK on pages I authored on my Mac but everyone using a PC gets a
little box instead. The Mac needs a numeric entitle (spelling?)
 and the PC will only show a &tm; oh well maybe in a later
release they will work it out.
--
_\|/_
(o o)
-*-=-=-oOO-(_)-OOo-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-
| -=> Brad Dye KN4BK Boynton Beach, Florida USA <=- |
| -=> Home Page: http://www.gate.net/~braddye/ <=- |
| -=> Telephone: (407) 738-7607 <=- |
| -=> E-mail: bra...@gate.net <=- |
-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-
_/ / \ \_
(___) (___)
Brad Dye
Jase Pittman-Wells
>Hello I just wrote up a page using some background GIFs. The page
>ftp3.netscape.com in case anyone wants to know).
>However, the same page looks completely different on the same version
> of Netsape on Win95, with a higher resolution monitor!! The transparency
>than what I set them up to be on the Macintosh.
I usually notice that the nice backgrounds I create on my 7500 end
up looking horrid on 256-color-mode Macs running Netscape (haven't
tried other browsers). Strangely enough, the same backgrounds look
fine on a Windows (3.1) machine also in 256-color mode and using
Netscape. I guess they can dither their pallettes or whatever better.
:-)
Jase
--
*** New Home URL http://www.crl.com/~jase/home/ *** I
Jase Pittman Wells * Home of the Army of Lovers Page and the V Page! * M
ja...@crl.com * * 1
*** (The new home premiers on December 2, 1995) *** 2
Jase Pittman-Wells
It sounds like you're referring to Photoshop above. It won't *let*
you save a GIF unless it's in Indexed Color mode (or Grayscale),
so that wouldn't be the issue..
Charles Peyton Taylor
>I have noticed that graphics on my home page look very different
>when viewed from my sister's PC and another PC at the house of a
>friend. The WWW browsers are supposed to be the "esperanto" of the
>internet!
Browsers cannot give one machine the characteristics of another.
>Another strange thing is that the trade mark symbol shows
>up OK on pages I authored on my Mac but everyone using a PC gets a
>little box instead. The Mac needs a numeric entitle (spelling?)
> and the PC will only show a &tm; oh well maybe in a later
>release they will work it out.
Perhaps the font you are using on your PC doesn't have the trademark
symbol? Personally, I would use <sup>(TM)</sup> which works on
netscape 1.2 and up, as well as NCSA Mosaic for Windows and Mac.
(PS: I received your post twice in the same newsgroup.)
C h a r l e s P e y t o n T a y l o r cta...@nps.navy.mil
The opinions and views expressed ## even though we're on our own,
are my own and do not reflect ## we are never all alone,
Those of the Naval PostGraduate School ## when we are singing, singing.
http://www.nps.navy.mil/personal/charles.taylor/
Jase Pittman-Wells
>On my site (noted below), the background looks great on a PC,
>but on my Mac Quadra 840AV at work, the same background GIF is
>VERY dark.
I looked at it with this campus Mac in 256-color mode, and the
background seemed ok. But maybe you did something to it since
your post?
However, I usually notice that when I view web pages on these
256-color-mode Macs, the image quality is terrible. They can't
seem to display the colors very well. I'm glad I don't have
to run my 7500 in 8-bit mode..!
Jase Pittman-Wells
>Another strange thing is that the trade mark symbol shows
>up OK on pages I authored on my Mac but everyone using a PC gets a
>little box instead. The Mac needs a numeric entitle (spelling?)
> and the PC will only show a &tm; oh well maybe in a later
>release they will work it out.
I'd stay away from using ASCII numbers with & escapes. On numbers
greater than 127, it's possible you won't always get the same ASCII
equivalent?
You're right, though. All browsers should support an &tm; escape.
There should be an &sm; too. :-)
K.F.Kinsey
fine on a Mac, but dithered with black dots on a PC, which makes the text
hard to read. ie using the tag:
<BODY bgcolor=ccccff text=000000>
This particular color was chosen because it seems to have the same RGB
values as the standard PC palette. These seem to be chosen from
combinations of hex 00,33,66 99,CC and FF. (Unless we are reading these
wrong!) The thought was that a standard color would not have to be
dithered.
Marcus Edward Hennecke
>Brad Dye <bra...@pop.gate.net> writes:
>>Another strange thing is that the trade mark symbol shows
>>up OK on pages I authored on my Mac but everyone using a PC gets a
>>little box instead. The Mac needs a numeric entitle (spelling?)
>> and the PC will only show a &tm; oh well maybe in a later
>>release they will work it out.
>
>I'd stay away from using ASCII numbers with & escapes. On numbers
>greater than 127, it's possible you won't always get the same ASCII
>equivalent?
ASCII only goes up to 127, so there can be no "ASCII equivalents"
above that. And HTML 2.0 uses ISO Latin 8859-1, which does not define
the characters 128 through 159. Thus, if you use any of these
characters the result will vary wildly between platforms and may also
depend on the particular setup of the browser (i.e. the fonts used).
>You're right, though. All browsers should support an &tm; escape.
There is no trademark symbol in HTML 2.0. However, there are
suggestions for using ™ in a future version of HTML. In the
meantime you might try <sup>(TM)</sup>.
--
Marcus E. Hennecke
mar...@leland.stanford.edu http://www.crc.ricoh.com/~marcush/
For FAQs first check ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/<name.of.newsgroup>
Paul Constantine
<chris....@mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
:A second problem is that you probably created that GIF using the Mac
:system palette so that Netscape would not dither the image. Obviously,
:this trick only works on a system that uses the Mac system palette ;-)
:so the PC would give you a dithered image. Netscape dithering and color
:allocation is optimised for speed of display, not graphics quality.
Exact-amenta! I NEVER downsample an image using the Mac system pallette! I
use the adaptive setting in Pshop indexing. Makes for a GREAT looking
graphic that dis0plays very well on both systems, ESPECDIALLY running more
than 8 bit video (which most Macs in the past 2-3 years can do as well as
most peeecees in the last 2-3 years).
\\\\
(@ @)
_________________ooOo_(-)_oOoo___
| Paul Constantine \\\\ |
| pa...@inch.com |
| http://www.inch.com/~paulc/ |
---------------------------------
Paul Constantine
:I've noticed that, too.
:
:On my site (noted below), the background looks great on a PC,
:but on my Mac Quadra 840AV at work, the same background GIF is
:VERY dark.
:
:Please, visit my web site on both platforms if possible and
:confirm this. Maybe it's just my Mac at work?
:
:Let me know! Thanks...
This happens a LOT with MANY graphics files having nothing to do with the
Net or Mozilla. I've seen many Mac only graphics that I find totally way
too dark. The general cause is in the person who created the graphic in
the first place. MANY folks like to hike thgeir monitor brightness all the
way up, so an image that looks roughly balanced will look way too dark on
a more "calibrated" system. I keep my gamma set so that the general gamma
relates reasonably precise to output (i.e. high res film). I generally
find that I NEVER run into too light an image, but very frequently a too
dark image. Notice that a number of games have a "gamma" control in them
(Doom comes to mind; I can only play it set to the lightest setting). If
you adjust both the monitors of the 2 machines to view the gif with the
best results, you'll be happier!
Keith Rhee
>This happens a LOT with MANY graphics files having nothing to do with the
>Net or Mozilla. I've seen many Mac only graphics that I find totally way
>too dark. The general cause is in the person who created the graphic in
>the first place. MANY folks like to hike thgeir monitor brightness all the
>way up, so an image that looks roughly balanced will look way too dark on
>a more "calibrated" system.
Actually, it's my finding that Macintosh systems seem to have a higher
gamma factor than its PC counterparts.
--
Keith Rhee
A boss says "Go." -- A leader says "Let's go."
http://student14.aiss.uiuc.edu/keith.html
qua...@netcom.com
Paul Silverman
(Paul Constantine) wrote:
> Exact-amenta! I NEVER downsample an image using the Mac system pallette! I
> use the adaptive setting in Pshop indexing. Makes for a GREAT looking
> graphic that dis0plays very well on both systems, ESPECDIALLY running more
> than 8 bit video (which most Macs in the past 2-3 years can do as well as
> most peeecees in the last 2-3 years).
Interesting. Paul, when you use create the adaptive palette in Pshop, I
assume you mean that you create a custom 256-color palette for your GIFs
and that you've found the result to be satisfactory on both Mac and
Windows Netscape.
Have you done this with photographic-quality originals? That's my current
dilemma. Or anyone else, the optimal palette choice for a GIF photo?
--
Paul Silverman
way...@netcom.com
Tom Lane
> pa...@inch.com (Paul Constantine) wrote:
>> Exact-amenta! I NEVER downsample an image using the Mac system pallette!
>> I use the adaptive setting in Pshop indexing.
> Interesting. Paul, when you use create the adaptive palette in Pshop, I
> assume you mean that you create a custom 256-color palette for your GIFs
> and that you've found the result to be satisfactory on both Mac and
> Windows Netscape.
Actually, a custom palette is just about the worst possible choice for
use with Netscape (although many other browsers will do a reasonable job
with custom-palette GIFs, as long as there aren't too many colors needed
in total). If Paul C. thinks this approach is satisfactory, then either
he's got low standards or he's never seen his pages in Netscape on an
8-bit display.
Netscape, when running on an 8-bit display, forces all images into a
preset "color cube" palette. That custom palette Paul generated is at
best a waste of time, and at worst leads to objectionable dithering
as the image is remapped. If Paul's generating a separate custom
palette for every image on a page, then *no* 8-bit browser is going
to be able to make a very nice-looking page once the total number of
colors needed exceeds 256.
You could surmount this by making sure all your GIFs use a subset of
Netscape's palette ... except that the palette varies across systems.
Bottom line: it's pretty much a waste of time to try to get high quality
display of GIFs from Netscape. You don't have enough knowledge of the
palette that your image will be rendered with. (Lots of people settle
for making it look good on their own machines. They may be rudely
surprised when they first see their pages on a different platform.)
> Have you done this with photographic-quality originals? That's my current
> dilemma. Or anyone else, the optimal palette choice for a GIF photo?
If it's a photo, you shouldn't even be thinking GIF at all. Use JPEG.
Smaller, higher quality on better-than-8-bit systems, and it eliminates
the problem of trying to guess the browser's palette.
regards, tom lane
organizer, Independent JPEG Group
PS: BTW, I hear that the latest beta version of Netscape will indeed use
a GIF's own palette ... if the GIF is the only thing on the page. This
doesn't strike me as much of a solution.
Shaun Mitchem
> Netscape, when running on an 8-bit display, forces all images into a
> preset "color cube" palette. That custom palette Paul generated is at
> best a waste of time, and at worst leads to objectionable dithering
> as the image is remapped. If Paul's generating a separate custom
> palette for every image on a page, then *no* 8-bit browser is going
> to be able to make a very nice-looking page once the total number of
> colors needed exceeds 256.
Great - some hard facts about how Netscape handles inline images. Can anyone point me at more
detailed information?
> You could surmount this by making sure all your GIFs use a subset of
> Netscape's palette ... except that the palette varies across systems.
Given the number of PC's out there, isn't the best compromise to use the Windows 256 palette and
keep your fingers crossed for other systems ? (!!!)
> > Have you done this with photographic-quality originals? That's my current
> > dilemma. Or anyone else, the optimal palette choice for a GIF photo?
>
> If it's a photo, you shouldn't even be thinking GIF at all. Use JPEG.
> Smaller, higher quality on better-than-8-bit systems, and it eliminates
> the problem of trying to guess the browser's palette.
Yes, but what happens when you've got GIFs and JPEGs on the same page? (<A
HREF="http://www.world-travel-net.co.uk">For example</A>) I'm not completely clear about this
because I can't find any detailed info, but it seems to me that, if the JPEG loads first, then
NETSCAPE creates a palette to best display the JPEG, making a mess of the GIFs, and vice versa if
one of the (system palette) GIFs loads first.
Incidently, doing Options, General Preferences, OK, once the page has loaded always sorts the
problem out - presumably because Netscape then creates a palette to best display all the images on
the screen at that time, rather than for the first image loaded.
Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated, 'cos it keeps cropping up.
Shaun Mitchem
Shaun Mitchem
>
> In article <49f4cq$3...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>, Chris Lilley
> <chris....@mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> :A second problem is that you probably created that GIF using the Mac
> :system palette so that Netscape would not dither the image. Obviously,
> :this trick only works on a system that uses the Mac system palette ;-)
> :so the PC would give you a dithered image. Netscape dithering and color
> :allocation is optimised for speed of display, not graphics quality.
>
> graphic that dis0plays very well on both systems, ESPECDIALLY running more
> than 8 bit video (which most Macs in the past 2-3 years can do as well as
> most peeecees in the last 2-3 years).
Using an adaptive palette is all very well if you are only planning to use one graphic on the page,
but what happens if you've got more than one image, each with its own adaptive palette? Two images
would give you possibly 512 unique colours on the screen, with many PC's only being able to dispaly
256 of them. In this situation, you surely you have to stick with the windows system palette,
otherwise you won't be able to predict the outcome of putting several images together on a page.
Shaun Mitchem
Tom Lane
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Netscape, when running on an 8-bit display, forces all images into a
>> preset "color cube" palette.
> Great - some hard facts about how Netscape handles inline images. Can
> anyone point me at more detailed information?
Netscape doesn't publish many details, and their code is a moving target
anyway. I don't think they've changed the basic approach since the
pre-1.0 releases, however.
> Yes, but what happens when you've got GIFs and JPEGs on the same page? (<A
> HREF="http://www.world-travel-net.co.uk">For example</A>) I'm not completely
> clear about this because I can't find any detailed info, but it seems to me
> that, if the JPEG loads first, then NETSCAPE creates a palette to best
> display the JPEG, making a mess of the GIFs, and vice versa if one of the
> (system palette) GIFs loads first.
No. Netscape dithers all JPEGs and GIFs into the same preset color-cube.
The results do not depend on order of loading, because the palette is
*fixed*. You may be confusing Netscape with some other browsers that use
different approaches. (With NCSA Mosaic, for example, the results *do*
depend on loading order.)
> Incidently, doing Options, General Preferences, OK, once the page has loaded
> always sorts the problem out
Some versions of Netscape do have bugs that are cured by forcing a redisplay
--- the one I've heard most about is bogus display of interlaced transparent
GIFs. This has nothing to do with palette selection, however.
Neil Hoggarth
Shaun Mitchem <v...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > You could surmount this by making sure all your GIFs use a subset of
> > Netscape's palette ... except that the palette varies across systems.
>
> Given the number of PC's out there, isn't the best compromise to use
> the Windows 256 palette and keep your fingers crossed for other systems
That isn't a compromise.
A compromise would involve making some concession to the other
platforms, rather than saying "we Windows users are OK, the rest of you
will have to lump it 'cos we out number you".
Regards,
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Neil Hoggarth Departmental Computer Officer
<neil.h...@physiol.ox.ac.uk> Laboratory of Physiology
http://www.physiol.ox.ac.uk/~njh/ Oxford University, UK
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Cary Gordon
differently than Quickdraw does. There is much less difference in .tiff
images or native PhotoShop files.
Cary Gordon
David A. Kaye
" I have noticed that graphics on my home page look very different
" when viewed from my sister's PC and another PC at the house of a
" friend. The WWW browsers are supposed to be the "esperanto" of the
" internet!
HTML language describes the KIND of information which is to be displayed.
It is not a layout language per se. Tags like <EM> indicate that a phrase
should be emphasized; it doesn't say how. The <OL> tag indicates an
unordered list. Some browsers put in bullets next to each item. Others
put in stars (*). Others give the user the option of choosing the kind
of bullet that is shown. Notice that there is no font tag in HTML. This
is because some browsers have only 1 font. Others such as Netscape can
be set for whatever font the users wants.
--
(c) 1995 Bill Gates has a $750K Porsche 959 he can't
David Kaye use stored in an Oakland warehouse.
michael moncur
Shaun Mitchem <v...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>Using an adaptive palette is all very well if you are only planning to
use one graphic on the page,
>but what happens if you've got more than one image, each with its own
adaptive palette? Two images
>would give you possibly 512 unique colours on the screen, with many PC's
only being able to dispaly
>256 of them. In this situation, you surely you have to stick with the
windows system palette,
>otherwise you won't be able to predict the outcome of putting several
images together on a page.
Of course, don't forget that "Click here to download a 24-bit color
Windows machine" button, for those who have other kinds of computers.
--
michael moncur, B.C., OEADM - m...@xmission.com [x] fot#1
WWW: http://www.xmission.com/~mgm/
Economical Web Page design and development services -
see http://www.xmission.com/~mgm/consult/web/
Paul Constantine
wrote:
:pa...@inch.com (Paul Constantine) writes:
:
:>This happens a LOT with MANY graphics files having nothing to do with the
:>Net or Mozilla. I've seen many Mac only graphics that I find totally way
:>too dark. The general cause is in the person who created the graphic in
:>the first place. MANY folks like to hike thgeir monitor brightness all the
:>way up, so an image that looks roughly balanced will look way too dark on
:>a more "calibrated" system.
:
: Actually, it's my finding that Macintosh systems seem to have a higher
: gamma factor than its PC counterparts.
Agreed, but I have the same problems with Mac graphics.
Paul Constantine
Lane) wrote:
:way...@netcom.com (Paul Silverman) writes:
:> pa...@inch.com (Paul Constantine) wrote:
:>> Exact-amenta! I NEVER downsample an image using the Mac system pallette!
:>> I use the adaptive setting in Pshop indexing.
:
:> Interesting. Paul, when you use create the adaptive palette in Pshop, I
:> assume you mean that you create a custom 256-color palette for your GIFs
:> and that you've found the result to be satisfactory on both Mac and
:> Windows Netscape.
:
:Actually, a custom palette is just about the worst possible choice for
:use with Netscape (although many other browsers will do a reasonable job
:with custom-palette GIFs, as long as there aren't too many colors needed
:in total). If Paul C. thinks this approach is satisfactory, then either
:he's got low standards or he's never seen his pages in Netscape on an
:8-bit display.
:
:Netscape, when running on an 8-bit display, forces all images into a
:preset "color cube" palette. That custom palette Paul generated is at
:best a waste of time, and at worst leads to objectionable dithering
:as the image is remapped. If Paul's generating a separate custom
:palette for every image on a page, then *no* 8-bit browser is going
:to be able to make a very nice-looking page once the total number of
:colors needed exceeds 256.
:
:You could surmount this by making sure all your GIFs use a subset of
:Netscape's palette ... except that the palette varies across systems.
:
:Bottom line: it's pretty much a waste of time to try to get high quality
:display of GIFs from Netscape. You don't have enough knowledge of the
:palette that your image will be rendered with. (Lots of people settle
:for making it look good on their own machines. They may be rudely
:surprised when they first see their pages on a different platform.)
:
:> Have you done this with photographic-quality originals? That's my current
:> dilemma. Or anyone else, the optimal palette choice for a GIF photo?
:
:If it's a photo, you shouldn't even be thinking GIF at all. Use JPEG.
:Smaller, higher quality on better-than-8-bit systems, and it eliminates
:the problem of trying to guess the browser's palette.
:
: regards, tom lane
: organizer, Independent JPEG Group
:
:PS: BTW, I hear that the latest beta version of Netscape will indeed use
:a GIF's own palette ... if the GIF is the only thing on the page. This
:doesn't strike me as much of a solution.
Yes I understand your points. And I DO check my stuff on 8 bit. BUT I do
NOT believe it a waste of time as the images with custom pallettes look
excellent on system >8 bit.
Paul Constantine
(Paul Silverman) wrote:
:In article <paulc-02129...@paulc.dialup.inch.com>, pa...@inch.com
:(Paul Constantine) wrote:
:
:> Exact-amenta! I NEVER downsample an image using the Mac system pallette! I
:> use the adaptive setting in Pshop indexing. Makes for a GREAT looking
:> graphic that dis0plays very well on both systems, ESPECDIALLY running more
:> than 8 bit video (which most Macs in the past 2-3 years can do as well as
:> most peeecees in the last 2-3 years).
:
:Interesting. Paul, when you use create the adaptive palette in Pshop, I
:assume you mean that you create a custom 256-color palette for your GIFs
:and that you've found the result to be satisfactory on both Mac and
:Windows Netscape.
:
:Have you done this with photographic-quality originals? That's my current
:dilemma. Or anyone else, the optimal palette choice for a GIF photo?
:--
:Paul Silverman
:way...@netcom.com
Yes I have. All of the stuff I've created looks great on either system as
long as they are running >8 bit color. With 8 bit color, they don't look
nearly as good, with a slight edge to the Mac as it does much better
dithering than a pc. I "experimented" around with optimized pallettes, but
that tended to make the stuff look like 8 bit on more capable systems,
while not making things look that much better on 8 bit systems.
Tom Lane
> t...@netcom.com (Tom Lane) wrote:
> :Netscape, when running on an 8-bit display, forces all images into a
> :preset "color cube" palette. That custom palette Paul generated is at
> :best a waste of time, and at worst leads to objectionable dithering
> :as the image is remapped.
> Yes I understand your points. And I DO check my stuff on 8 bit. BUT I do
> NOT believe it a waste of time as the images with custom pallettes look
> excellent on system >8 bit.
On better-than-8-bit displays, those images would look far better if
you didn't reduce them to 8 bits in the first place. Leave 'em full
color and ship them as JPEG.
Basically what I'm arguing is that if you are dealing with full-color
original images, especially if you have more than one to a page, then
serving 'em as JPEG is a better overall solution than serving them as
GIF. They'll look *much* better that way on greater-than-8-bit
displays. They'll also look better in Netscape on 8-bit displays.
The only case where GIF might look better is if (a) the browser honors
the GIF's custom palette (Netscape doesn't), and (b) you guessed
correctly as to how many colors the browser will let you use.
Not to mention probably a three-to-one bandwidth advantage for JPEG.
GIF has its place --- icons, line drawings, and suchlike --- but
full-color images are almost always better handled as JPEG.
Adam Rice
> Basically what I'm arguing is that if you are dealing with full-color
> original images, especially if you have more than one to a page, then
> serving 'em as JPEG is a better overall solution than serving them as
> GIF. They'll look *much* better that way on greater-than-8-bit
> displays. They'll also look better in Netscape on 8-bit displays.
> The only case where GIF might look better is if (a) the browser honors
> the GIF's custom palette (Netscape doesn't), and (b) you guessed
> correctly as to how many colors the browser will let you use.
>
> Not to mention probably a three-to-one bandwidth advantage for JPEG.
>
> GIF has its place --- icons, line drawings, and suchlike --- but
> full-color images are almost always better handled as JPEG.
I don't dispute this point, but is there a way to do a transparency bit in
JPEG? That's a pretty handy feature of GIF that people tend to overlook.
Mebbe Netscape could have invented that spec while they were cooking up
progressive JPEG...
---
Another note on Mac/PC differences in Netscape: there seems to be a "clear
zone" at the edge of the window for both, but *it isn't the same*. Check
out a page that uses a background image that is meant to line up a certain
way with the inline images, like www.highfive.com. Doesn't look the same
on PCs and Macs.
cheers
Adam Rice | adam...@crossroads.net | The Revolution
Austin TX USA | http://www.realtime.net/~adamrice | will be televised
Anthony Boyd
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Netscape, when running on an 8-bit display, forces all images into a
>
> Yes, but what happens when you've got GIFs and JPEGs on the same page? (<A
> HREF="http://www.world-travel-net.co.uk">For example</A>) I'm not
completely clear about this
> because I can't find any detailed info, but it seems to me that, if the
JPEG loads first, then
> NETSCAPE creates a palette to best display the JPEG, making a mess of
the GIFs, and vice versa if
> one of the (system palette) GIFs loads first.
No. As Tom Lane wrote (above), Netscape has a *preset* color palette. It
isn't dynamic, at least not on my computer (and apparently not Tom's
either) -- meaning it doesn't change with each image. It has 256 colors
selected even before you open any images. When an image is opened, it
tries to display it with the 256 colors it already selected. If you open
100 images, GIF or JPEG, it still dithers them down to the same 256 colors
it always uses.
So. Use any palette you want. Use 1 color, 256 colors, or millions of
colors -- every image will be dithered to the standard 256. That's why
some people have posted in amazement to this newsgroup, complaining
"Netscape dithered my *background color!*". Yes, it'll even dither that
one color if it isn't one of the preselected colors.
I hear that Mosaic has a dynamic palette that changes for each Web page.
That would give you better graphics. But I haven't tested Mosaic, so I
dunno.
__________________Anthony Boyd, whi...@zoom.com_________________
| WEBsurf AMERICA | WEBsurf EUROPE |
| http://www.zoom.com/~whisper/ | http://www.jsp.fi/~whisper/ |
--------------ftp.etext.org (cd pub/Zines/Whisper)---------------
Tom Lane
> I don't dispute this point, but is there a way to do a transparency bit in
> JPEG?
No, unfortunately, and it wouldn't be a simple thing to add.
> Mebbe Netscape could have invented that spec while they were cooking up
> progressive JPEG...
ROTFL...
Son, Netscape hasn't invented a damn thing in the JPEG arena.
They just use the IJG JPEG library.
Which is written primarily by yours truly.
Warren 'Llama' Ernst
>v...@easynet.co.uk wrote:
>No. As Tom Lane wrote (above), Netscape has a *preset* color palette. It
>isn't dynamic, at least not on my computer (and apparently not Tom's
>either) -- meaning it doesn't change with each image. It has 256 colors
>selected even before you open any images. When an image is opened, it
>tries to display it with the 256 colors it already selected. If you open
>100 images, GIF or JPEG, it still dithers them down to the same 256 colors
>it always uses.
>
>So. Use any palette you want. Use 1 color, 256 colors, or millions of
>colors -- every image will be dithered to the standard 256. That's why
>some people have posted in amazement to this newsgroup, complaining
>"Netscape dithered my *background color!*". Yes, it'll even dither that
>one color if it isn't one of the preselected colors.
No no no no. If your windows pallate is set to more than 256, Netscape
won't dither anything. Try it and you'll see. There's some dithering
with 256 colors, a ton of dithering with 16, and lots of strange
things on a B/W mac, but I digress on that point. I set WIn95 for 65k
colors, and NOTHING ever Dithers. The color cube selection setting is
rendered moot.
Virtually,
Warr
------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Author, "Using Netscape" | Warren Ernst - wer...@deltanet.com
"Using Netscape in Windows95" | http://www.deltanet.com/users/wernst/
"Netscape Unleashed"(contrib) | Computer Consultant, Technical Writer
Que and SamsNet Publishing | Graphic Artist, Nerd
------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Ignacio Rodriguez de R.
whi...@zoom.com (Anthony Boyd) wrote:
> So. Use any palette you want. Use 1 color, 256 colors, or millions of
> colors -- every image will be dithered to the standard 256. That's why
> some people have posted in amazement to this newsgroup, complaining
> "Netscape dithered my *background color!*". Yes, it'll even dither that
> one color if it isn't one of the preselected colors.
Could you send me the specs of that pallete, or... better yet, send me the
pallete itself in photoshop or PICT format.
Thanks!
--
Saludos.
<signature>
Ignacio Rodriguez
ign...@iam.cl
Imagenes Asociadas Multimedia
http://nexus.chilenet.cl/iam/index.html
</signature>
Paul Constantine
adam...@crossroads.net (Adam Rice) wrote:
:I don't dispute this point, but is there a way to do a transparency bit in
:JPEG? That's a pretty handy feature of GIF that people tend to overlook.
:Mebbe Netscape could have invented that spec while they were cooking up
:progressive JPEG...
No transparency in jpeg. I'd speculate that you may never see this! BTW,
NS did NOT cook up progressive jpeg. Progressive apparently was part of
the original jpeg definition, it's just that nobody implemented it until
NS did!
Paul Constantine
Lane) wrote:
:pa...@inch.com (Paul Constantine) writes:
:> t...@netcom.com (Tom Lane) wrote:
:> :Netscape, when running on an 8-bit display, forces all images into a
:> :preset "color cube" palette. That custom palette Paul generated is at
:> :best a waste of time, and at worst leads to objectionable dithering
:> :as the image is remapped.
:
:> Yes I understand your points. And I DO check my stuff on 8 bit. BUT I do
:> NOT believe it a waste of time as the images with custom pallettes look
:> excellent on system >8 bit.
:
:On better-than-8-bit displays, those images would look far better if
:you didn't reduce them to 8 bits in the first place. Leave 'em full
:color and ship them as JPEG.
:
:Basically what I'm arguing is that if you are dealing with full-color
:original images, especially if you have more than one to a page, then
:serving 'em as JPEG is a better overall solution than serving them as
:GIF. They'll look *much* better that way on greater-than-8-bit
:displays. They'll also look better in Netscape on 8-bit displays.
:The only case where GIF might look better is if (a) the browser honors
:the GIF's custom palette (Netscape doesn't), and (b) you guessed
:correctly as to how many colors the browser will let you use.
:
:Not to mention probably a three-to-one bandwidth advantage for JPEG.
:
:GIF has its place --- icons, line drawings, and suchlike --- but
:full-color images are almost always better handled as JPEG.
:
: regards, tom lane
: organizer, Independent JPEG Group
Again, I think at the core we really are in agreement. As it seems that
most browsers WILL allow in-line jpegs, most stuff I develop going out
will make more use of that format. I DO wish that most of the jpeg viewers
(including browsers) would start dealing with progressive jpegs, tho!
Rudi C. Wong
Anthony Boyd <whi...@zoom.com wrote:
... As Tom Lane wrote (above), Netscape has a *preset* color palette. It
isn't dynamic, at least not on my computer (and apparently not Tom's
either) -- meaning it doesn't change with each image. It has 256 colors
selected even before you open any images. When an image is opened, it
tries to display it with the 256 colors it already selected. If you open
100 images, GIF or JPEG, it still dithers them down to the same 256 colors
it always uses.
colors -- every image will be dithered to the standard 256. That's why
some people have posted in amazement to this newsgroup, complaining
"Netscape dithered my *background color!*". Yes, it'll even dither that
one color if it isn't one of the preselected colors.
Anyone happen to know what Netscape's preset palette of 256 colors is?
Seems like useful information to have, even if only to select a decent
background color for 8-bit display.
Thanks.
-rudi
Doug Jacobson
> Anyone happen to know what Netscape's preset palette of 256 colors is?
>
> Seems like useful information to have, even if only to select a decent
> background color for 8-bit display.
Try the color palette linked from my home page. They don't seem to
dither...
Doug
****************************************************************
* Doug Jacobson Proud to be a Parrothead! Follow the *
* E-mail: jaco...@phoenix.net dancing life... *
* Web: http://www.phoenix.net/~jacobson *
****************************************************************
Anthony Boyd
> >isn't dynamic, at least not on my computer (and apparently not Tom's
> >either) -- meaning it doesn't change with each image. It has 256 colors
> >selected even before you open any images. When an image is opened, it
> >tries to display it with the 256 colors it already selected. If you open
> >100 images, GIF or JPEG, it still dithers them down to the same 256 colors
> >it always uses.
>
> won't dither anything.
Well of course Warren. I wasn't talking about systems that display at 65k
or 16m colors. I was talking only about the 256 color system the original
poster was referring to.
Ed Murphy
: Rudi C. Wong wrote:
Would the above be the reason the color palette changes occassionally?
I'm using NS 2.0b3 and occassionally the color palette will change on me.
It can be reset by opening any of the subwindows (e.g. "Preferences") and
closing it.
Could this be something weird with my display?
Ed
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= Edward Murphy * emu...@www.uno.edu =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RPM
whi...@zoom.com (Anthony Boyd) wrote:
> No. As Tom Lane wrote (above), Netscape has a *preset* color palette. It
> isn't dynamic, at least not on my computer (and apparently not Tom's
> either) -- meaning it doesn't change with each image. It has 256 colors
> selected even before you open any images. When an image is opened, it
> tries to display it with the 256 colors it already selected. If you open
> 100 images, GIF or JPEG, it still dithers them down to the same 256 colors
> it always uses.
>
> So. Use any palette you want. Use 1 color, 256 colors, or millions of
> colors -- every image will be dithered to the standard 256. That's why
> some people have posted in amazement to this newsgroup, complaining
> "Netscape dithered my *background color!*". Yes, it'll even dither that
> one color if it isn't one of the preselected colors.
Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned that Debabelizer users could
use the Netscape preset "color cube/palette" to get an accurate idea of
what your image will look like when viewed through Netscape. Has Netscape
made these specifications public? Does anyone know where one could get a
list of the 256 colors that Netscape prefers to use?
Cheers...
--
Remain where you are while vehicle is in motion.
--
http://www.fraternity.com
Paul Silverman
new...@fraternity.com (RPM) wrote:
> Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned that Debabelizer users could
> use the Netscape preset "color cube/palette" to get an accurate idea of
> what your image will look like when viewed through Netscape. Has Netscape
> made these specifications public? Does anyone know where one could get a
> list of the 256 colors that Netscape prefers to use?
I found the listing of the 216 colors in Netscape's Technical Support
notes on their Web site. I then tried to pull in the graphics that they
use on their own site, assuming that, of course, they would use their own
recommended pallette. No dice. They don't use it themselves, at least yet.
So, I painstakingly crafted the pallette by hand -- all 216 colors, plus
the 10 standard at front and at back. (Writing a quick AppleScript made
this process significantly less tedious.) Leaving 20 colors available for
adaptive, using a multiple merge technique in DeBabelizer. So that
ultimately, for any given GIF you end up with 20 standard Windows colors +
216 Netscape Windows + 20 adaptive to the image itself = 256 colors.
If anybody wants, I can post a file with this Netscape Windows pallette
somewhere.
And if there's sufficient interest, I'll post the DeBab technique for
making this happen.
Of course, we all realize that this is a stop gap measure -- I wish I
could use JPEG for these photos, but I can't. Anyway, I hope this helps.
--
Paul Silverman
way...@netcom.com
Paul Silverman
> Anyone happen to know what Netscape's preset palette of 256 colors is?
>
> Seems like useful information to have, even if only to select a decent
> background color for 8-bit display.
You can find a listing of all 216 colors (6 X 6 X 6) in Netscape's
Technical Support pages on their WWW site.
--
Paul Silverman
way...@netcom.com
Hactar
(Paul Silverman) wrote:
[...]
>So, I painstakingly crafted the pallette by hand -- all 216 colors, plus
>the 10 standard at front and at back. (Writing a quick AppleScript made
>this process significantly less tedious.) Leaving 20 colors available for
>adaptive, using a multiple merge technique in DeBabelizer. So that
>ultimately, for any given GIF you end up with 20 standard Windows colors +
>216 Netscape Windows + 20 adaptive to the image itself = 256 colors.
>
>If anybody wants, I can post a file with this Netscape Windows pallette
>somewhere.
How about if you post a .gif with 216 pixels, each in one of the NS
colors? Or maybe a Photoshop palette file? Thx.
/===BBS=813=960=8066===Eb...@Gate.Net====83=GPz=550===DoD=#16384===\
| Did you ever get the feeling that the story's too damn real |
|____________and in the present tense? Jethro Tull________________|
| -.-- -.-- --.. -.-- -.-- --.. | An idea that is not dangerous |
| -.-- -.-- --.. -.-- -.-- --.. | is unworth of being called |
|____Rush, _Moving Pictures_ | an idea at all. Oscar Wilde_____|
| And we never failed to fail; it was the easiest thing to do CSN |
| He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; |
\______and he who dares not is a slave. Sir William Drummond______/