Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps

 
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003

"Beemer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Using IE5. What gives with MS IE? Can't they get that right? Option
> to save pictures is BMP only and untitled. Went online to find fix.
> None worked. Notice in forums that plenty of people have this
> problem, even with IE5.5 and 6.
>
> Also, whats with the contoured colour separation look to the pictures?


Plenty of people don't have that problem, in fact most people using MS IE.
And what's your colour resolution stuck on? It might be helpful to know
what OS you're using.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beemer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2003
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:16:36 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
<(E-Mail Removed) (remove eye)> wrote:

>
>"Beemer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Using IE5. What gives with MS IE? Can't they get that right? Option
>> to save pictures is BMP only and untitled. Went online to find fix.
>> None worked. Notice in forums that plenty of people have this
>> problem, even with IE5.5 and 6.
>>
>> Also, whats with the contoured colour separation look to the pictures?

>
>Plenty of people don't have that problem, in fact most people using MS IE.
>And what's your colour resolution stuck on? It might be helpful to know
>what OS you're using.
>
>E. Scrooge
>

Win98SE. 800x600 16bit. I only used IE because a log-in wouldn't work
with anything else, for that site. Perhaps it is because of the
log-in which there doesn't seem to be a cure for.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2003

"Beemer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:16:36 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
> <(E-Mail Removed) (remove eye)> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Beemer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> Using IE5. What gives with MS IE? Can't they get that right? Option
> >> to save pictures is BMP only and untitled. Went online to find fix.
> >> None worked. Notice in forums that plenty of people have this
> >> problem, even with IE5.5 and 6.
> >>
> >> Also, whats with the contoured colour separation look to the pictures?

> >
> >Plenty of people don't have that problem, in fact most people using MS

IE.
> >And what's your colour resolution stuck on? It might be helpful to know
> >what OS you're using.
> >
> >E. Scrooge
> >

> Win98SE. 800x600 16bit. I only used IE because a log-in wouldn't work
> with anything else, for that site. Perhaps it is because of the
> log-in which there doesn't seem to be a cure for.


At that ressolution of colour. The website where the picture is probably
looks all right. When looking at your 16bit picture especially if some
other colour consuming application is also showing, your grabbed picture
could look like crap. In something like Irfan View in full screen mode, it
should look okay again.
If you've got a good video card or at least 8MB shared video, then you
should be able to use 800 X 600 32bit (or at least 24bit colour) true colour
mode. That should fix your colour problem.
When saving the picture, you should be right clicking to bring up the menu
to select what you want done with it. Call it whatever you like, you should
be able to select JPG from a pull down menu. If your last saved picture was
BMP, it's probably showing that. If you can see a downwards arrow - right
of file name - that should show BMP and JPG when selected to choose from.
If you've chosen to set a picture as a background wallpaper, it be BMP
format.

Do you know how to change the resolution of your desktop? In that menu
you'll see the options that are available.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nicholas Sherlock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2003
"E. Scrooge" <(E-Mail Removed) (remove eye)> wrote in message
news:beu05d$d21$(E-Mail Removed)...
> At that ressolution of colour. The website where the picture is probably
> looks all right. When looking at your 16bit picture especially if some
> other colour consuming application is also showing, your grabbed picture
> could look like crap.


Try again. It's nearly impossible to tell the difference between 24 bit and
16 bit. Maybe 24 bit and 16 colours.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock


 
Reply With Quote
 
Beemer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2003
>If it was an IE problem, it would be a widespread one. IE5.5 on this old
>PC, and IE6 on the newer PC don't have a problem. You display 2 pictures
>while using 16bit, those pictures will look worse than ever as the colours
>in both pictures are compensated for the limited range in colours with
>16bit.
>
>E. Scrooge
>

You are starting to sound like a hard core MS or IE defender. It is an
IE problem or it wouldn't turn up in forums. I have never been able
to tell the visual difference between 16bit and 24 or 32bit colour
settings. Even 256 colour pics look OK when I convert them to bmp for
use as wallpapers (I don't have Active Desktop installed so don't use
jpegs as wallpapers. They uncompress in RAM to large 16m colour files
anyway). If you want better performance speedwise from your graphics
card 16bit will give it to you.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Perston
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2003
Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
>
> Try again. It's nearly impossible to tell the difference between 24 bit and
> 16 bit. Maybe 24 bit and 16 colours.
>
> Cheers,
> Nicholas Sherlock
>



Wrong, Nicholas . Take a photo of the sky where there's a nice
gradient and it'll be horribly banded with 16 bit colour and smooth with
24 (the difference is easy to spot in games as well). I can't remember
exactly how it works, but I guess 16 bits means only 32 or 64 shades of
pure blue or red or green, right?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nicholas Sherlock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2003
"E. Scrooge" <(E-Mail Removed) (remove eye)> wrote in message
news:bf03rc$mlp$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Nicholas Sherlock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bevmnb$eag$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "E. Scrooge" <(E-Mail Removed) (remove eye)> wrote in message
> > news:beu05d$d21$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > At that ressolution of colour. The website where the picture is

> probably
> > > looks all right. When looking at your 16bit picture especially if

some
> > > other colour consuming application is also showing, your grabbed

picture
> > > could look like crap.

> >
> > Try again. It's nearly impossible to tell the difference between 24 bit

> and
> > 16 bit. Maybe 24 bit and 16 colours.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nicholas Sherlock

>
> Open 2 pictures side by side and it's not.
> There's a big difference between 65,000 and 16,000,000.
>
> E. Scrooge
>


Rubbish! I wrote a tool that converts an image to 16 bit and shows it side
by side with the orignal 24 bit. The images are barely different. I'll post
the program somewhere if someone wants to see. The algorithm that I've coded
for converting 24 bit to 16 bit looks like this:

newrow[x].rgbtblue := (newrow[x].rgbtblue and
24+(integer((newrow[x].rgbtblue and 7)>3)*;
newrow[x].rgbtred := (newrow[x].rgbtred and 24+(integer((newrow[x].rgbtred
and 7)>3)*;
newrow[x].rgbtgreen := (newrow[x].rgbtgreen and
252)+(integer((newrow[x].rgbtgreen and 3)>2)*4);

Basically, for red and blue it takes the top 5 bits (That's the AND 248
part), then, if the remaining 3 bits make up a number more than 3, it adds
an additional 8 to the value. For green, it takes the top 6 bits (That's the
AND 252 part), then, if the remaining 2 bits make up a number more than 2,
it adds an additional 4 to the value.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nicholas Sherlock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2003
"Nicholas Sherlock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bf0cid$upg$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "E. Scrooge" <(E-Mail Removed) (remove eye)> wrote in message
> news:bf03rc$mlp$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "Nicholas Sherlock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:bevmnb$eag$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > "E. Scrooge" <(E-Mail Removed) (remove eye)> wrote in message
> > > news:beu05d$d21$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > At that ressolution of colour. The website where the picture is

> > probably
> > > > looks all right. When looking at your 16bit picture especially if

> some
> > > > other colour consuming application is also showing, your grabbed

> picture
> > > > could look like crap.
> > >
> > > Try again. It's nearly impossible to tell the difference between 24

bit
> > and
> > > 16 bit. Maybe 24 bit and 16 colours.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Nicholas Sherlock

> >
> > Open 2 pictures side by side and it's not.
> > There's a big difference between 65,000 and 16,000,000.
> >
> > E. Scrooge
> >

>
> Rubbish! I wrote a tool that converts an image to 16 bit and shows it side
> by side with the orignal 24 bit. The images are barely different. I'll

post
> the program somewhere if someone wants to see. The algorithm that I've

coded
> for converting 24 bit to 16 bit looks like this:
>
> newrow[x].rgbtblue := (newrow[x].rgbtblue and
> 24+(integer((newrow[x].rgbtblue and 7)>3)*;
> newrow[x].rgbtred := (newrow[x].rgbtred and

24+(integer((newrow[x].rgbtred
> and 7)>3)*;
> newrow[x].rgbtgreen := (newrow[x].rgbtgreen and
> 252)+(integer((newrow[x].rgbtgreen and 3)>2)*4);


Whoops.. thought this was the Delphi newsgroup and people could know what I
was talking about . I posted the algorithm so that people could chip in
"That's not how it's done on the Nvidia chips, or something. You can
download the program to see your 24 bit images converted to 16 bit and show
alongside from http://sherlocksoftware.tripod.com/show16bit.exe . Your
display should be set to 24 bit or it'll be useless.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Perston
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2003
Nicholas Sherlock wrote:

> Rubbish! I wrote a tool that converts an image to 16 bit and shows it side
> by side with the orignal 24 bit. The images are barely different. I'll post
> the program somewhere if someone wants to see. The algorithm that I've coded
> for converting 24 bit to 16 bit looks like this:


Have you tried it with images specifically constructed to illustrate the
difference? Or with real pictures with smooth colour gradients?

> Basically, for red and blue it takes the top 5 bits (That's the AND 248
> part), then, if the remaining 3 bits make up a number more than 3, it adds
> an additional 8 to the value. For green, it takes the top 6 bits (That's the
> AND 252 part), then, if the remaining 2 bits make up a number more than 2,
> it adds an additional 4 to the value.
>
> Cheers,
> Nicholas Sherlock


Okay, so you have 32 shades of blue, right? Hence banding in skies etc.
You can reproduce it synthetically, and it's often obvious in games.
It's rarely hideous, but there's definitely an advantage to using
24-bit colour.

Write a little programme to make pictures with gradient fills and then
compare them in 16- and 24-bit colour, surely it'll be noticeable.

And E. Scrooge: I don't think having multiple pictures open makes any
difference since 16 bit colour doesn't involve palettes.

 
Reply With Quote
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2003

"Ben Perston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3f13e076$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
>
> > Rubbish! I wrote a tool that converts an image to 16 bit and shows it

side
> > by side with the orignal 24 bit. The images are barely different. I'll

post
> > the program somewhere if someone wants to see. The algorithm that I've

coded
> > for converting 24 bit to 16 bit looks like this:

>
> Have you tried it with images specifically constructed to illustrate the
> difference? Or with real pictures with smooth colour gradients?
>
> > Basically, for red and blue it takes the top 5 bits (That's the AND 248
> > part), then, if the remaining 3 bits make up a number more than 3, it

adds
> > an additional 8 to the value. For green, it takes the top 6 bits (That's

the
> > AND 252 part), then, if the remaining 2 bits make up a number more than

2,
> > it adds an additional 4 to the value.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nicholas Sherlock

>
> Okay, so you have 32 shades of blue, right? Hence banding in skies etc.
> You can reproduce it synthetically, and it's often obvious in games.
> It's rarely hideous, but there's definitely an advantage to using
> 24-bit colour.
>
> Write a little programme to make pictures with gradient fills and then
> compare them in 16- and 24-bit colour, surely it'll be noticeable.
>
> And E. Scrooge: I don't think having multiple pictures open makes any
> difference since 16 bit colour doesn't involve palettes.


Get something like Paint Shop Pro. Shove a true colour picture in it. Let
PSP do a colour count with the display set at 16bit. Something close to
65,000 colours will be the result. Shove another picture in it. Now cut a
large portion out of the 1st picture and paste it into the 2nd picture.
According to you the colours of the pasted object won't have changed just
like they wouldn't change in 24bit or 32bit modes.

The more pictures open the more the colours will be altered in each one from
their original 65,000 colours in 16bit. It can't show a picture that has
completely different 65,000 shades to the other picture with it's 65,000.
Individually will be fine, but compromised when together.

Copy and past and good luck in 16bit mode with the great results.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps Phillip Weston NZ Computing 0 07-14-2003 10:32 PM
Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps Gib Bogle NZ Computing 0 07-14-2003 09:10 PM
Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps Mainlander NZ Computing 2 07-14-2003 04:10 PM
Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps The Enforcer NZ Computing 1 07-14-2003 10:12 AM
Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps Peter NZ Computing 1 07-14-2003 10:02 AM



Advertisments