09-26-2010, 10:34 PM
Hi Rainer,
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1285539148' post='3276']
Well, that is at least strange ... because this means to make this effect visible another
step of resizing (by the browser or by flash) is eventually required. Did it make a difference
which browser you used?
For a test, I just displayed an image containing my daughters hair with ie8, with firefox and
with irfanview ... the browsers display this image absolutely awful ... the hair contains a
horrible amount of stair-like artefacts ... the display by irfanview is flawless. Now, if I resize this
image with irfanview to a size that can be displayed by the browsers without additional resizing, the
display by the browser is also flawless. ... My conclusion would be ... your attempt to resize eventuelly
left you with an image that was still too large (and therefore required additional resizing by
the browser).
Just a thought...Rainer
[/quote]
No, it didn't actually make a difference in my case. I deliberately tested for that too. And I tested with 4 different browsers <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. If a picture happened to look good, it seemed to be a random thing, although the same picture looking good once, looked good anywhere. I couldn't get this to work consistenly, until I started the workflow described higher up.
Currently, my pictures look good to me now in any browser, whether it downsizes further or not, and on most screens, except on the cheaper non-calibrated tft/lcd screens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. However, I don't care about the latter, as a little of manual "calibration" goes a long way <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Kind regards, Wim
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1285539148' post='3276']
Well, that is at least strange ... because this means to make this effect visible another
step of resizing (by the browser or by flash) is eventually required. Did it make a difference
which browser you used?
For a test, I just displayed an image containing my daughters hair with ie8, with firefox and
with irfanview ... the browsers display this image absolutely awful ... the hair contains a
horrible amount of stair-like artefacts ... the display by irfanview is flawless. Now, if I resize this
image with irfanview to a size that can be displayed by the browsers without additional resizing, the
display by the browser is also flawless. ... My conclusion would be ... your attempt to resize eventuelly
left you with an image that was still too large (and therefore required additional resizing by
the browser).
Just a thought...Rainer
[/quote]
No, it didn't actually make a difference in my case. I deliberately tested for that too. And I tested with 4 different browsers <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. If a picture happened to look good, it seemed to be a random thing, although the same picture looking good once, looked good anywhere. I couldn't get this to work consistenly, until I started the workflow described higher up.Currently, my pictures look good to me now in any browser, whether it downsizes further or not, and on most screens, except on the cheaper non-calibrated tft/lcd screens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. However, I don't care about the latter, as a little of manual "calibration" goes a long way <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
