McMark
Jun 7 2007, 11:52 PM
This is not a trick or a game. I'm just curious for the technical future of the site.
So.Cal.914
Jun 8 2007, 12:02 AM
I don't see a bit of differance.
drgchapman
Jun 8 2007, 12:03 AM
QUOTE(So.Cal.914 @ Jun 7 2007, 11:02 PM)
I don't see a bit of differance.
Me too
markb
Jun 8 2007, 12:12 AM
Burritos? I thought it was burgers.
type47fan
Jun 8 2007, 12:14 AM
SWAG. . . how you say, images vs text. . . ?
Grimstead
Jun 8 2007, 12:14 AM
Mike D.
Jun 8 2007, 12:17 AM
The drop shadow on the left is more opaque giving the text on the right a darker look even though they are the same.
type47fan
Jun 8 2007, 12:28 AM
QUOTE(Mike D. @ Jun 7 2007, 11:17 PM)
The drop shadow on the left is more opaque giving the text on the right a darker look even though they are the same.
Hi, Mike!
scruz914
Jun 8 2007, 12:31 AM
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentNow they look different. The gif image (left) retains all of its characteristics when copied. The png image does some wierd things depending on what is used to open/view it. A lot depends on what your goal is. The gif file is smaller if that is important (usually is).
-Jeff
McMark
Jun 8 2007, 12:50 AM
My goal is to see how many people's browsers support PNG.
But thanks for the tips Jeff.
URY914
Jun 8 2007, 06:42 AM
I like tacos.
gopack
Jun 8 2007, 07:29 AM
Ok i looked at home, and one had a blue square around the words, and one didn't (right one blue IIRC) then I get to work and they both looked the same. i voted different, but now i am confused!
what is PNG?
blitZ
Jun 8 2007, 07:39 AM
QUOTE(McMark @ Jun 8 2007, 02:50 AM)
My goal is to see how many people's browsers support PNG.
But thanks for the tips Jeff.
Looks fine in FireFox.
boxstr
Jun 8 2007, 08:53 AM
Is that a shaved burrito, or au naturel?
CCLIN914NATION
drgchapman
Jun 8 2007, 09:00 AM
QUOTE(boxstr @ Jun 8 2007, 07:53 AM)
Is that a shaved burrito, or au naturel?
CCLIN914NATION
That would be tacos, Craig.
Shaved.
boxstr
Jun 8 2007, 09:45 AM
Not the ones I have seen
CCLINWETBURRITO
VaccaRabite
Jun 8 2007, 09:49 AM
They are different, but only because I looked at the properties to see if they were the same size, and noticed one is a gif, and the other png.
They are drawing the same on my monitor.
Zach
pffft
Jun 8 2007, 11:01 AM
Mark, at home with vista and whatever the latest ie
is, I get what I guess is an actvie x box with red x on
the right, text on white background with shadows on the left.
I will try it with firefox tonight.
On this box it works fine. Windows XP IE 6 I see the same
text white background with shadows on the left, and text
grey background on the right with a white frame.
patrick
mikelsr
Jun 8 2007, 11:04 AM
They look the same on my Fedora Core 6 with FireFox.
I did see that they were different image types but they displayed the same with your posting. When scruz914 reposted them the .png image has a transparent background. I think you can set up a .gif image to do the same thing.
Mike
McMark
Jun 8 2007, 12:54 PM
Okay, it looks like there are more people who are PNG 'disabled' than I expected so that's out.
Here's the reasoning:
When we make a new color skin for the site we must recreate all of the images (there are 19 images on this page alone) with the new colors. It would be great if we could just use a single image that would have a nice transparent background.
The 'classic' tried and true, and most importantly, well supported way to do that is with a transparent GIF file. The problem with a transparent GIF file is that when you change the background on it the shading keeps the original color and becomes a halo. GIF considers the shading just part of the image and doens't treat it any differently as anything else. This is what a transparent GIF looks like that was originally created on an orange background.
Click to view attachmentPNG is the 'evolving' way to create transparent image files with shading. PNG stores the shading as just that, a percentage of shade and not colors. So you can let the web page background 'show through' the PNG image and it will pick up the shading. This is the same PNG image as in the first post. See how it picks up the background?
Unfortunately IE doesn't support PNG very well and the 50%<->50% split from all of you proves that. I was hoping to see somewhere areound 99% <-> 1%.
If you see a weird blue version of the image on the right in the first post. Your browser doesn't support PNG.
More Information about PNGMore Information about GIF
Dr. Roger
Jun 8 2007, 12:59 PM
XP SP2
Mozilla FireFox 2.0.0.4
The png has a slightly darker background and the drop shadow is also a bit different.
Dr. Roger
Jun 8 2007, 01:23 PM
Mark,
Doesn't a transparent gif have a neutral shadow allowing it to be placed over any background?
I just tested it on my website and it showed up a neutral grey on different background pages.
RoadGlue
Jun 8 2007, 02:26 PM
PNG-24 has the ability to do variable transparency on the antialiased parts of the image when the image is saved with a transparent background. You can't do that with GIF, so transparencies only work correctly if you're not using antialiasing or if you're putting the image on the native background color that was used when creating the GIF.
Dr. Roger's big 9-1-4 W-O-R-L-D logo that's located below his sig is an example of a PNG that would work correctly on any background color because its antialiasing utilizes transparency. If it were a gif, it would only look good on the background color of this page.
Unfortunately there are some compatibility issues with PNG. My take is that if it doesn't look good on your browser, then you're using the wrong one!
Using Vista with Firefox here.
I'm probably just repeating what's already been said,
McMark
Jun 8 2007, 02:31 PM
Roger, I can see a white Halo around your drop shadow. Look closely!
RoadGlue
Jun 8 2007, 03:13 PM
Transparent PNG with drop shadow test:
PNG-24, saved using Photoshop CS2. Looks good here, no borders on the drop shadow. Heavy antialiasing came out fine.
Garland
Jun 8 2007, 03:54 PM
Left looks sharper then one on right. Other then that, the same. I am on a Macintosch.
Chuck
Jun 8 2007, 05:25 PM
QUOTE(McMark @ Jun 7 2007, 09:52 PM)
This is not a trick or a game. I'm just curious for the technical future of the site.
<Br><BR>
<TABLE BORDER=0>
<TR>
<TD STYLE="background-color: #FFF;">
<IMG SRC="http://www.914world.com/members/markd/gif.gif">
</TD>
<TD STYLE="background-color: #FFF;">
<IMG SRC="http://www.914world.com/members/markd/png.png">
</TD>
</TABLE>
Different. Not sure what you are testing, but one has a bluish tint behind the message while the other is white.
orthobiz
Jun 8 2007, 05:26 PM
I am also on a Macintosh. I voted "different" only because the right image drop shadow is ever slightly darker. I voted before I read the other posts, so maybe I should have voted "the same" because the two images are really, really close.
I'm running Safari on System 10.4.9.
Paul
To the untrained eye, they can easilly look the same. As for the eye of a pro, aaaaaaaah, he would easilly see them to be diametrically different in every aspect.
Silly fella, borritos are for chics.
Dr. Roger
Jun 8 2007, 07:16 PM
LOL... =) I don't know shit about squat.
sww914
Jun 8 2007, 07:20 PM
I vote for tacos.
Pat Garvey
Jun 8 2007, 07:41 PM
They look like the same thing - only different.
Burritos give me that pharghts (my spelling) - tacos (wink!) do not.
Katmanken
Jun 8 2007, 08:12 PM
Lefty lighty, righty darky
Doesn't matter whether I am at home or on another system at work.
Ken
carreraguy
Jun 8 2007, 08:30 PM
QUOTE(orthobiz @ Jun 8 2007, 04:26 PM)
I am also on a Macintosh. I voted "different" only because the right image drop shadow is ever slightly darker. I voted before I read the other posts, so maybe I should have voted "the same" because the two images are really, really close.
I'm running Safari on System 10.4.9.
Paul
I'm a Mac too.
customstarr
Jun 8 2007, 08:35 PM
The image on the right is lower resolution and exhibits lower definition of the font characters. How do I know this? Because I'm high. No really... zoom the page.
flesburg
Jun 8 2007, 08:37 PM
On my MacBook Pro running Firefox, there is no difference
between the gray level of the drop shadows.
No difference on my machine.
effutuo101
Jun 8 2007, 11:17 PM
QUOTE(URY914 @ Jun 8 2007, 05:42 AM)
I like tacos.
Invader Zim....Gir quote.
ClayPerrine
Jun 8 2007, 11:30 PM
QUOTE(carreraguy @ Jun 8 2007, 09:30 PM)
QUOTE(orthobiz @ Jun 8 2007, 04:26 PM)
I am also on a Macintosh. I voted "different" only because the right image drop shadow is ever slightly darker. I voted before I read the other posts, so maybe I should have voted "the same" because the two images are really, really close.
I'm running Safari on System 10.4.9.
Paul
I'm a Mac too.
I'm sorry..
Maybe you should have that looked at?
Heeltoe914
Jun 9 2007, 04:10 PM
NO
RoninEclipse2G
Jun 13 2007, 01:48 PM
QUOTE(effutuo101 @ Jun 8 2007, 11:17 PM)
QUOTE(URY914 @ Jun 8 2007, 05:42 AM)
I like tacos.
Invader Zim....Gir quote.
You're right! Maybe I'll get a giant burrito too!
BUUUURRRRIIIITTOOOO!
Edit: the real quote would be "I love the little tacos. I love them good!"
Joe Ricard
Jun 14 2007, 11:48 AM
It true Joe Ricard fashion.
"Just make it work" If it doesn't I will bitch about it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.