molkman
Owner of George Washington's Prototype Mittens
2005 May 2 • 2066
404 ₧
|
Does anyone know how I can avoid having different colors on Windows than on Mac on a website in the exact same image? That doesn't make any sense to me :C .
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 8 at 17:01 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
I'm pretty sure thats not possible, give an example?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 8 at 17:42 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
So you have a picture which has different tones when displayed on Windows and when displayed on Mac? Not sure I unnerstan'.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 8 at 17:56 UTC
|
|
|
|
You are probably using PNG's and they probably have color-correction data in them.
You can remove it with pngcrush
Or maybe OptiPNG
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 8 at 18:07 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Jun 8 at 18:07 UTC
|
|
|
molkman
Owner of George Washington's Prototype Mittens
2005 May 2 • 2066
404 ₧
|
Okay, cool. Thanks, I'll try those.
I had the problem with pngs once, but it was between Firefox and IE on Windows. The one image had a different tone than the other. If you looked at both in Photoshop and took the color code, it was the same, although one could clearly see it being different colors.
That was between a .gif and a .png. Now I changed it to .jpg and .gif. While it looks all the same on Windows with FF and IE, now there's a difference in Windows and Mac. I changed it to both being .gif and now it seems to be all right, I'm not sure though. (You can check yourself here if you have both a Mac and a PC. The horizontal green menu strip at the top didn't match the background color of the menu items when touching them with the mouse.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 8 at 19:07 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Jun 8 at 19:08 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
Well there's your problem, .gif is shit unless its an animated picture.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 8 at 19:17 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Rockbomb has a point, as we're sure you know GIFs are limited to 256 colours. At some point, IE did not do PNGs properly either.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 8 at 20:45 UTC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 8 at 20:55 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Jun 8 at 20:56 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
chrome got 100 on the test 
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 8 at 21:17 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Yes, Webkit fully complies, which means Safari gets 100 as well. AFAIR the latest builds of FireFox end up at 96 and IE 8 *shudder* hits the sixties, maybe.
And Presto by Opera gets 100.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 8 at 22:03 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Jun 8 at 22:03 UTC
|
|
|
molkman
Owner of George Washington's Prototype Mittens
2005 May 2 • 2066
404 ₧
|
Rockbomb said: Well there's your problem, .gif is shit unless its an animated picture.
But .gif is the only one that actually worked! And the images I'm dealing with have only like, 2 colors.
I'd love to see browsers team up on their engines, so websites look all the same on every browser. Because right now it's pretty ridiculous. 
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 9 at 07:56 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Jun 9 at 07:57 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Well, the IE renderer is always going to remain closed :p
Theoretically, this is what standards are for. But I'm not even sure if it's a browser issue - all browsers use standard libraries for the images and things. It sounds like a really weird problem!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 9 at 15:21 UTC
|
|
|
|
molkman said: [...] I changed it to both being .gif and now it seems to be all right, I'm not sure though. (You can check yourself here if you have both a Mac and a PC. [...] Can you link to the one that doesn't work? I'm curious to see what's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 9 at 20:15 UTC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom line, use Chrome, fastest in the bizunes.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 10 at 08:22 UTC
|
|
|
molkman
Owner of George Washington's Prototype Mittens
2005 May 2 • 2066
404 ₧
|
Doesn't depend on what I use though. I want the site too look like it should on the very browsers that are used most.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 10 at 10:09 UTC
|
|
|
|
Everybody should use Chrome, in fact all other web browsers should be illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 10 at 12:59 UTC
|
|
|
aaronjer
*****'n Admin
2005 Mar 21 • 5105
1,227 ₧
|
If all other web browsers were illegal then people would use them because they're illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 10 at 16:58 UTC
|
|
|
|
aaronjer said: ...weed...illegal...people...use...because...illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 10 at 17:05 UTC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 10 at 17:58 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Jun 10 at 18:41 UTC
|
|
|
|
The JPG is only a little off. JPG is a lossy format so there's no expectation that colors will not shift a bit. JPG should only really be used with photographs anyway.
Also the look of your JPG is highly dependent on the compression level your image editor uses to save the file.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 10 at 17:59 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Jun 10 at 18:00 UTC
|
|
|
molkman
Owner of George Washington's Prototype Mittens
2005 May 2 • 2066
404 ₧
|
Cool shizz, dog.
However, after crushing the png, the darker green stripes stuff is way ligher and harder to see than on the other, working images. 
superjer said: The JPG is only a little off.
Yes, but on Windows, it's not off at all.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 10 at 18:04 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Jun 10 at 18:05 UTC
|
|
|
|
molkman said: However, after crushing the png, the darker green stripes stuff is way ligher and harder to see than on the other, working images. Looks the same to me. What are you viewing it in?
molkman said: superjer said: The JPG is only a little off.
Yes, but on Windows, it's not off at all.
Hmm, you're right, I wonder if there's a JPGcrush...
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 10 at 18:35 UTC
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^ I removed your background color where I quoted you to make it easier to compare the images.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Jun 10 at 18:41 UTC
|
|
|
|
Page [1]
|
