Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by E. Scrooge, Jul 13, 2003.

  1. E. Scrooge

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Beemer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    E. Scrooge, Jul 13, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. E. Scrooge

    Beemer Guest

    On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:16:36 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
    < (remove eye)> wrote:

    >
    >"Beemer" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> 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.
     
    Beemer, Jul 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. E. Scrooge

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Beemer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:16:36 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
    > < (remove eye)> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Beemer" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> 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
     
    E. Scrooge, Jul 14, 2003
    #3
  4. "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    news:beu05d$d21$...
    > 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
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Jul 15, 2003
    #4
  5. E. Scrooge

    Beemer Guest

    >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.
     
    Beemer, Jul 15, 2003
    #5
  6. E. Scrooge

    Ben Perston Guest

    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?
     
    Ben Perston, Jul 15, 2003
    #6
  7. "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    news:bf03rc$mlp$...
    >
    > "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > news:bevmnb$eag$...
    > > "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    > > news:beu05d$d21$...
    > > > 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
    248)+(integer((newrow[x].rgbtblue and 7)>3)*8);
    newrow[x].rgbtred := (newrow[x].rgbtred and 248)+(integer((newrow[x].rgbtred
    and 7)>3)*8);
    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
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Jul 15, 2003
    #7
  8. "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    news:bf0cid$upg$...
    > "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    > news:bf03rc$mlp$...
    > >
    > > "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bevmnb$eag$...
    > > > "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    > > > news:beu05d$d21$...
    > > > > 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
    > 248)+(integer((newrow[x].rgbtblue and 7)>3)*8);
    > newrow[x].rgbtred := (newrow[x].rgbtred and

    248)+(integer((newrow[x].rgbtred
    > and 7)>3)*8);
    > 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
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Jul 15, 2003
    #8
  9. E. Scrooge

    Ben Perston Guest

    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.
     
    Ben Perston, Jul 15, 2003
    #9
  10. E. Scrooge

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Ben Perston" <> wrote in message
    news:3f13e076$...
    > 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
     
    E. Scrooge, Jul 15, 2003
    #10
  11. E. Scrooge

    Beemer Guest

    On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:51:40 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
    < (remove eye)> wrote:

    >
    >"Beemer" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> >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.

    >
    >They can't show 16 Million colours if you're stuck on 16bit crap.
    >Old PC has 4MB graphics card - set at 24bit for true colour of course.
    >Newer PC has 128MB grahics card set at 32bit true colour. True colour
    >pictures look identical on both PCs. The performance of the newer PC isn't
    >slowed one bit.
    >
    >It's not an IE problem at all. IE didn't make you select 16bit, and God
    >knows whatever else you've done on your computer. Also there's nothing to
    >defend, you either have a problem or you're quite happy jusrt the way that
    >you are.
    >Good luck.
    >
    >E. Scrooge
    >

    Actually it was on 32bit, I forgot changing it. Normally it is on
    16bit. A graphics benchmarking prog can show quite a difference in
    graphics speed between 16 and 32bit.
     
    Beemer, Jul 15, 2003
    #11
  12. E. Scrooge

    Beemer Guest

    On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:35:35 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
    < (remove eye)> wrote:

    >
    >"Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    >news:bevmnb$eag$...
    >> "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    >> news:beu05d$d21$...
    >> > 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
    >

    OK, I took a first gen scan, jpeg, 16m colours, converted it to bmp
    (jpegs seem to save as 16m colours what ever you reduced it to),
    reduced one to 64K colours and one to 256 colours. The differences
    when switching rapidly between them were at most *subtle*. Big
    difference? Stuffed if I can see that! Maybe it is your graphics
    card / monitor combination or driver issue? To call 16bit crappy is
    going over the top!
     
    Beemer, Jul 15, 2003
    #12
  13. E. Scrooge

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Beemer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:51:40 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
    > < (remove eye)> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Beemer" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> >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.

    > >
    > >They can't show 16 Million colours if you're stuck on 16bit crap.
    > >Old PC has 4MB graphics card - set at 24bit for true colour of course.
    > >Newer PC has 128MB grahics card set at 32bit true colour. True colour
    > >pictures look identical on both PCs. The performance of the newer PC

    isn't
    > >slowed one bit.
    > >
    > >It's not an IE problem at all. IE didn't make you select 16bit, and God
    > >knows whatever else you've done on your computer. Also there's nothing

    to
    > >defend, you either have a problem or you're quite happy jusrt the way

    that
    > >you are.
    > >Good luck.
    > >
    > >E. Scrooge
    > >

    > Actually it was on 32bit, I forgot changing it. Normally it is on
    > 16bit. A graphics benchmarking prog can show quite a difference in
    > graphics speed between 16 and 32bit.


    That means very little on a PC with some grunt - A gig of RAM and a Ti4200
    video card.
    Normal pictures should be as good as they can be on 32bit. For games etc
    you might need to go to 16bit on your setup.
    When viewing a JPG picture on the Net it gets shoved into your IE temp
    folders whether you manually save the picture elsewhere on your HD or not.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Jul 15, 2003
    #13
  14. E. Scrooge

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Beemer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:35:35 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
    > < (remove eye)> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > >news:bevmnb$eag$...
    > >> "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    > >> news:beu05d$d21$...
    > >> > 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
    > >

    > OK, I took a first gen scan, jpeg, 16m colours, converted it to bmp
    > (jpegs seem to save as 16m colours what ever you reduced it to),
    > reduced one to 64K colours and one to 256 colours. The differences
    > when switching rapidly between them were at most *subtle*. Big
    > difference? Stuffed if I can see that! Maybe it is your graphics
    > card / monitor combination or driver issue? To call 16bit crappy is
    > going over the top!


    You were talking about having your display stuck on 16bit, then recently you
    say that you also use 32bit. In 32bit mode 65,000 colour pictures will look
    fine, even when more than one is displayed.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Jul 15, 2003
    #14
  15. "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    news:bf1anl$nda$...
    >
    > "Beemer" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:35:35 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
    > > < (remove eye)> wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > >"Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > > >news:bevmnb$eag$...
    > > >> "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    > > >> news:beu05d$d21$...
    > > >> > 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
    > > >

    > > OK, I took a first gen scan, jpeg, 16m colours, converted it to bmp
    > > (jpegs seem to save as 16m colours what ever you reduced it to),
    > > reduced one to 64K colours and one to 256 colours. The differences
    > > when switching rapidly between them were at most *subtle*. Big
    > > difference? Stuffed if I can see that! Maybe it is your graphics
    > > card / monitor combination or driver issue? To call 16bit crappy is
    > > going over the top!

    >
    > You were talking about having your display stuck on 16bit, then recently

    you
    > say that you also use 32bit. In 32bit mode 65,000 colour pictures will

    look
    > fine, even when more than one is displayed.
    >


    It makes no difference how many is displayed. 16 bit colour is NOT pallette
    based. You get the same set of colours every time. With 24 bit, you get 8
    bits per channel. With 16 bit, you get 5 bits for red and blue, and 6 bits
    for green since our eyes are more sensitive to green. It's just 24 bit with
    the lower 3 or 2 bits chopped off. Only 256 colour uses pallettes.

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Jul 16, 2003
    #15
  16. "Beemer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >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
    > >

    > Nice little prog, but I have to ask, which side is which? I can't
    > tell.


    Exactly. The left side is 24 bit, the right side is the converted 16 bit.

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Jul 16, 2003
    #16
  17. E. Scrooge

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    news:bf24g3$7ml$...
    > "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    > news:bf1anl$nda$...
    > >
    > > "Beemer" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:35:35 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
    > > > < (remove eye)> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >"Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote in message
    > > > >news:bevmnb$eag$...
    > > > >> "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in

    message
    > > > >> news:beu05d$d21$...
    > > > >> > 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
    > > > >
    > > > OK, I took a first gen scan, jpeg, 16m colours, converted it to bmp
    > > > (jpegs seem to save as 16m colours what ever you reduced it to),
    > > > reduced one to 64K colours and one to 256 colours. The differences
    > > > when switching rapidly between them were at most *subtle*. Big
    > > > difference? Stuffed if I can see that! Maybe it is your graphics
    > > > card / monitor combination or driver issue? To call 16bit crappy is
    > > > going over the top!

    > >
    > > You were talking about having your display stuck on 16bit, then recently

    > you
    > > say that you also use 32bit. In 32bit mode 65,000 colour pictures will

    > look
    > > fine, even when more than one is displayed.
    > >

    >
    > It makes no difference how many is displayed. 16 bit colour is NOT

    pallette
    > based. You get the same set of colours every time. With 24 bit, you get 8
    > bits per channel. With 16 bit, you get 5 bits for red and blue, and 6 bits
    > for green since our eyes are more sensitive to green. It's just 24 bit

    with
    > the lower 3 or 2 bits chopped off. Only 256 colour uses pallettes.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Nicholas Sherlock


    Try pasting from 16bit to 16bit (picture to picture). The colours in the
    paste will change when copied to the other picture. While the desktop
    display is also 16bit just for good measure.
    I only use 32bit display on this bugger. The old PC is stuck with 24bit.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Jul 16, 2003
    #17
  18. E. Scrooge

    Ben Perston Guest

    E. Scrooge wrote:
    > "Ben Perston" <> wrote in message


    >>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.


    I don't have PSP. Xnview reports the actual number of colours (ie
    >65536), which is what I suspect PSP would do too. Presumably the

    display driver is what handles the conversion to 16 bit colours. My
    understanding of how it works is that there are 65,536 colours, all up -
    not like with 256 colours where palettes of 256 colours (chosen from the
    16 bit rainbow) are used, since otherwise you'd only have four flavours
    of red, etc. When you convert an image from 2^24 colours, for each point
    the closest match from the 65536 is chosen. I think that if you did
    what you describe, the colours of the pasted object wouldn't change

    > 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.


    This woul be true (and ghastly) with 256-colour pictures using palettes.
     
    Ben Perston, Jul 16, 2003
    #18
  19. "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
    news:bf2pdt$p13$...
    > Try pasting from 16bit to 16bit (picture to picture). The colours in the
    > paste will change when copied to the other picture. While the desktop
    > display is also 16bit just for good measure.
    > I only use 32bit display on this bugger. The old PC is stuck with 24bit.


    Then that's a fault with your imaging program. There's no reason at all for
    them to change. BTW 32 bit is not different to 24 bit. The only difference
    is that you have an extra 8 bits that are used for nothing at all (Some
    applications use them for transparency information). Trust me here.. I do
    extensive work with colours at the bit level in my programs.

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Jul 16, 2003
    #19
  20. E. Scrooge

    Kookaburra Guest

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:50:36 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
    < (remove eye)> wrote:
    >
    >And your desktop display is 24bit (true colour) - how wonderful for you.
    >Beemer was talking about 16bit display - then he later claims to be using
    >32bit.
    >
    >PSP can decrease the number of colours in a picture showing bugger all
    >difference as well - when on true colour with the different pictures all
    >open on the screen.
    >
    >E. Scrooge
    >


    An imported jpg will loose too much of it's definition when opening,
    closing and opening. I transform jpg files to lossless bmp-format when
    working with XaraX and that is actually recommended in PSP as well.

    My resolution is actually set to High Color 16bit which was
    recommended for the stationery groups I play in. I haven't got a
    32bit option with windows 98SE :-(

    Cheers, Kooky
     
    Kookaburra, Jul 16, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter

    Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps

    Peter, Jul 13, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    647
    Beemer
    Jul 14, 2003
  2. The Enforcer

    Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps

    The Enforcer, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    606
    Beemer
    Jul 14, 2003
  3. Mainlander

    Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps

    Mainlander, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    637
    Beemer
    Jul 14, 2003
  4. Gib Bogle

    Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps

    Gib Bogle, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    614
    Gib Bogle
    Jul 14, 2003
  5. Phillip Weston

    Re: IE saving jpegs as bmps

    Phillip Weston, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    630
    Phillip Weston
    Jul 14, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page