256 color palette?

Demitrius

unread,

Apr 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/18/97

to

Hi,

Does anybody know where I can get a 256 color palette to load in IC? I've
tried the Netscape palette that comes with IC, but the colors still look
terrible.

Thanks!
Demitrius >i<

Ian Mair..

unread,

Apr 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/21/97

to

Demitrius

Try the Safety Palette available in article from the MS site - sorry but I
dont have the URL, however, it can be found by searching the site for "The
Safety Palette" or "Robert B. Hess"
--
Best regards
Ian Mair
webm...@ieaust.org.au
http://www.ieaust.org.au/
The site for professional engineers
==========================

Demitrius <sim...@genesisnetwork.net> wrote in article
<01bc4c57$2e626f80$804c...@simone.genesisnetwork.net>...

David Patino

unread,

May 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/1/97

to

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01BC564C.499A8D60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The URL to that site is:
http://www.microsoft.com/workshop/design/safety/safetypalette-f.htm

------=_NextPart_000_01BC564C.499A8D60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"Trident 4.71.0544.0"' name=3DGENERATOR>

</HEAD>
<BODY>
The URL to that site is:

<A=20
href=3D"http://www.microsoft.com/workshop/design/safety/safetypalette-f.h=
tm">http://www.microsoft.com/workshop/design/safety/safetypalette=
-f.htm</A>

</BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_01BC564C.499A8D60--

David Patino

unread,

May 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/1/97

to

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01BC564D.E14B24C0

Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Your explanation of using the saftey pallette doesn't help my situation. =
I use 32-bit graphics (VLB card) and so do the people I design my web =
page and graphics for. Now, even when I save the file I'm working on in =
a true-color jpeg format, it still doesn't look like what it does in =
Image Composer.. The ONLY way I've been able to get them out the way I =
want them to is to capture the screen (with the Printscreen button) then =
paste that into Paint, save it as a bitmap, then use yet another program =
to convert it to a gif or jpg file. There HAS to be some other way of =
saving a file from Image Composer so that it looks the way I designed =
it. If you are using Outlook Express, I've included both pictures, one =
saved directly from image composer, and the one that went through the =
paint procedure.The one on top is straight from Image composer, while =
the one on the bottom has gone through my capture and convert procedure. =
Even though the bottom one has been altered/updated, you can see that it =
is much clearer. So, how can I get the ones I save directly from image =
composer to look as sharp as the one on the bottom?=20
Thanks, David
n9...@amsat.org

------=_NextPart_000_01BC564D.E14B24C0

Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"Trident 4.71.0544.0"' name=3DGENERATOR>

</HEAD>
<BODY>
Your explanation of using the saftey =
pallette doesn't=20
help my situation. I use 32-bit graphics (VLB card) and so do the people =
I=20
design my web page and graphics for. Now, even when I save the file I'm =
working=20
on in a true-color jpeg format, it still doesn't look like what it does =
in Image=20
Composer.. The ONLY way I've been able to get them out the way I want =
them to is=20
to capture the screen (with the Printscreen button) then paste that into =
Paint,=20
save it as a bitmap, then use yet another program to convert it to a gif =
or jpg=20
file. There HAS to be some other way of saving a file from Image =
Composer so=20
that it looks the way I designed it. If you are using Outlook Express, =
I've=20
included both pictures, one saved directly from image composer, and the =
one that=20
went through the paint procedure.The one on top is straight from Image =
composer,=20
while the one on the bottom has gone through my capture and convert =
procedure.=20
Even though the bottom one has been altered/updated, you can see that it =
is much=20
clearer. So, how can I get the ones I save directly from image composer =
to look=20
as sharp as the one on the bottom?

Thanks, David

<A=20

href=3D"mailto:n9...@amsat.org">n9...@amsat.org</A>

</BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_01BC564D.E14B24C0--

Ulysses Ashton

unread,

May 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/1/97

to

Larry -

I know this is a really obvious one, but I've seen comments here from time
to time about the JPG dialog's compression slider scale and whether the
scale is constant across various imaging programs.

I wonder if perhaps David is using an improper setting with the
slider/compression, maybe needing to move the scale to the left towards the
lower numbers for higher quality/lower compression images. I find that
unless you are REALLY zooming in on the image for pixel touchups, the JPG
is for practical purposes (in the context of the web) close to
indistinguishable from the original image as far as quality is concerned.

If the image is being used for other purposes, other factors come into
play. I liked your point about preserving the image in a lossless format.
The .MIC and .TIF formats would serve David's purpose well, no?

<<<Ulysses>>>

Larry Stevens <lar...@diac.com> wrote in article
<01bc5697$b0bc1d60$0100007f@dell>...
>
> Remember that JPEG is a "lossy" (image data is actually lost every time
> it's saved) compression scheme. If you're saving an image from your
browser
> or another application as a JPEG, then opening it up in MIC, altering it
> and then saving it as a JPEG again, it's probably getting compressed at
> least twice.

Ulysses Ashton

unread,

May 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/1/97

to

Larry -

Ahhhhhh!!! That's right. I forgot about that one. I knew there was a
reason that we weren't using the optimal file sizes in order to get all of
those transparent and animated images up on our pages.

Is it me or does MIC not seem to support all of the TIF variations? I am
strongly hoping that MS enhances the support that IC gives to files of
other types. The list is too short right now. I'd like to see WMF, WPG,
CDR, and other file types in there. So much clipart comes in these formats
nowadays.

<<<Ulysses>>>

Larry Stevens <lar...@diac.com> wrote in article

<01bc569f$47f10d60$0100007f@dell>...
>
> However, another advantage of using something like MIC, TIF,
> PSD, etc. for your original artwork is that they also support alpha
> information (and objects/layers in some cases).

Larry Stevens

unread,

May 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/1/97

to

Yes, there are a variety of different scales used for JPEG compression
factors, and I agree David may simply need to reduce or turn off the
compression. However, another advantage of using something like MIC, TIF,

PSD, etc. for your original artwork is that they also support alpha
information (and objects/layers in some cases).

Larry

Ulysses Ashton <ash...@mhv.net> wrote in article
<01bc569c$1dae9980$15aff5cd@ashton>...

> Larry -
>
> I know this is a really obvious one, but I've seen comments here from
time
> to time about the JPG dialog's compression slider scale and whether the
> scale is constant across various imaging programs.
>
> I wonder if perhaps David is using an improper setting with the
> slider/compression, maybe needing to move the scale to the left towards
the
> lower numbers for higher quality/lower compression images. I find that
> unless you are REALLY zooming in on the image for pixel touchups, the JPG
> is for practical purposes (in the context of the web) close to
> indistinguishable from the original image as far as quality is concerned.
>
> If the image is being used for other purposes, other factors come into
> play. I liked your point about preserving the image in a lossless
format.
> The .MIC and .TIF formats would serve David's purpose well, no?
>

> <<<Ulysses>>>
>
> Larry Stevens <lar...@diac.com> wrote in article

Larry Stevens

unread,

May 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/1/97

to

Ulysses Ashton <ash...@mhv.net> wrote in article

<01bc56ab$1759f8e0$24aff5cd@ashton>...

> Is it me or does MIC not seem to support all of the TIF variations? I am
> strongly hoping that MS enhances the support that IC gives to files of
> other types. The list is too short right now. I'd like to see WMF, WPG,
> CDR, and other file types in there. So much clipart comes in these
formats
> nowadays.

I'm not too optimistic about formats like WMF, CDR or EPS (you didn't
mention EPS, but it's very prevalent, too) making it into MIC. They're
mostly vector graphics, with limited bitmap information, so they'd have to
have to add vector-to-raster conversion which probably isn't too easy.

I would like to see more bitmap formats, however. Progressive JPEG and PNG
would be nice.

Larry