3 ms·

"Browsers are often horrible at resizing files; it would not look good at all." What's with the weasel words? You can name names if you want. Which browsers? w

"Browsers are often horrible at resizing files; it would not look good at all." What's with the weasel words? You can name names if you want. Which browsers? what do they do that makes them look horrible? The only browsers left I know of that use nearest neighbour resampling are ie7 and ie8. "If you want to mess with speed, save it." You're joking, right? "If you want a way to trigger replay in your browser, file a bug report." you definitely are joking. You think I'm the first person to ever want that?

Dylan16807 13y ago
I'm not joking when I say right click should have a repeat option. Why does a suggestion to file a bug report sound dismissive to you? It's not like I told you to code it yourself. I'm not joking about changing speed; how often do you want to play a video in slow motion? It's not really the browser's job to do that. I used weasel words because I didn't want to go testing. In addition to me remembering additional issues on my phone, Opera and IE10 do bad resampling, and chrome does a weird thing where it shows bad resampling for a couple seconds before replacing it with good resampling. Specifically, when I say 'bad' here, it's not nearest neighbor but it's not using a proper method either. Small details, such as lines 3-4 pixels wide, disappear entirely in spots when I zoom out. They're using algorithms that only sample a couple of points, which breaks down terribly on sizes like 33%. Edit: I found a mozilla bug report claiming that high-quality resizing is turned off if an image is on a page multiple times. Ech.
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  The suggestion to file a bug report doesn't sound dismissive. It sounds naive. It assumes that I wouldn't go to the bugzilla and just see, already there, these: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=617875 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=617875 (2010) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=284511 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=284511 (2005) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=899861 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=899861 (2013) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211145 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211145 (2003) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96873 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96873 (2001) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523973 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523973 (2009) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629819 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629819 (2011) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619957 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619957 (2010) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873881 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873881 (2013) Need I go on? I laughed because the problem with gifs is so obvious and painful I couldn't imagine there wouldn't be a pile of really old bugs there already. Gifs on page don't really work right. They're not consistent, predictable, and none of the many inconsistent ways they do behave in is what anyone expects. But this is all well known by anyone but the browser developers, it seems. Filing a duplicate is a waste of everyone's time. "I'm not joking about changing speed; how often do you want to play a video in slow motion? It's not really the browser's job to do that." I mean changing speed for design effects. We're not talking about video here. Remember? We're talking about gifs/pngs. Totally different thing. Totally different use cases. Admittedly it's not often I'd need to do that. Really adding play/rewind/pause/seek, in that order, is more important. "Small details, such as lines 3-4 pixels wide, disappear entirely in spots when I zoom out. They're using algorithms that only sample a couple of points, which breaks down terribly on sizes like 33%." Fascinating. Maybe I should do some tests. Do you have example images where you'd expect problems to happen?

Dylan16807 13y ago

I'm not joking when I say right click should have a repeat option. Why does a suggestion to file a bug report sound dismissive to you? It's not like I told you to code it yourself. I'm not joking about changing speed; how often do you want to play a video in slow motion? It's not really the browser's job to do that. I used weasel words because I didn't want to go testing. In addition to me remembering additional issues on my phone, Opera and IE10 do bad resampling, and chrome does a weird thing where it shows bad resampling for a couple seconds before replacing it with good resampling. Specifically, when I say 'bad' here, it's not nearest neighbor but it's not using a proper method either. Small details, such as lines 3-4 pixels wide, disappear entirely in spots when I zoom out. They're using algorithms that only sample a couple of points, which breaks down terribly on sizes like 33%. Edit: I found a mozilla bug report claiming that high-quality resizing is turned off if an image is on a page multiple times. Ech.

TheZenPsycho 13y ago
The suggestion to file a bug report doesn't sound dismissive. It sounds naive. It assumes that I wouldn't go to the bugzilla and just see, already there, these: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=617875 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=617875 (2010) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=284511 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=284511 (2005) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=899861 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=899861 (2013) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211145 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211145 (2003) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96873 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96873 (2001) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523973 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523973 (2009) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629819 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629819 (2011) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619957 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619957 (2010) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873881 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873881 (2013) Need I go on? I laughed because the problem with gifs is so obvious and painful I couldn't imagine there wouldn't be a pile of really old bugs there already. Gifs on page don't really work right. They're not consistent, predictable, and none of the many inconsistent ways they do behave in is what anyone expects. But this is all well known by anyone but the browser developers, it seems. Filing a duplicate is a waste of everyone's time. "I'm not joking about changing speed; how often do you want to play a video in slow motion? It's not really the browser's job to do that." I mean changing speed for design effects. We're not talking about video here. Remember? We're talking about gifs/pngs. Totally different thing. Totally different use cases. Admittedly it's not often I'd need to do that. Really adding play/rewind/pause/seek, in that order, is more important. "Small details, such as lines 3-4 pixels wide, disappear entirely in spots when I zoom out. They're using algorithms that only sample a couple of points, which breaks down terribly on sizes like 33%." Fascinating. Maybe I should do some tests. Do you have example images where you'd expect problems to happen?