David Inga Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I love that many members of the community have a profile picture. This is great! The way the pictures display on my computer are not so great. They are fuzzy and pixelated. My setup is as follows: 27" Thunderbolt DisplayMacBook ProOS X Yosemite Version 10.10.2 I have attached an image of the avatars displayed on my screen.
Dylan Riggs Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 So what's the suggestion? You just happened to point something out. When it comes to pictures, all mileage will vary depending on your browsing experience thanks to the resolutions real estate that you have.Your 27" Thunderbolt Display is 2560x1600 or 1440. It's not the 'norm' when browsing where you'll have a lot of extra white space and if images are not 'retina
Alexander V Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 The suggestion is, quite obviously, to fix that. I think it's reasonable, 27 inch iMacs and Thunderbolt Displays are growing in popularity, nevermind the fact that displays do exist at the same resolution for PC's. Or the growing popularity of high but odd resolution tablets.
opentype Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 The suggestion is, quite obviously, to fix that.Fix what? That display is the result of what the render engine of your OS and/or browser offer. What should IPS do about it?The images itself are scaled down. That is actually good because they now appear hi-res on my Retina screen.The circles, well, that’s styling. You might want to remove the box-shadow or the outline, or even make the whole thing square so there is less anti-aliasing going on on smaller-resolution screens. But that’s really a matter of taste.
Alexander V Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Fix what? That display is the result of what the render engine of your OS and/or browser offer. What should IPS do about it?The images itself are scaled down. That is actually good because they now appear hi-res on my Retina screen.The circles, well, that’s styling. You might want to remove the box-shadow or the outline, or even make the whole thing square so there is less anti-aliasing going on on smaller-resolution screens. But that’s really a matter of taste. Everything on display is the result of what your render engine of your browser offers, what's your point? Thunderbolt displays are of top quality.
opentype Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Thunderbolt displays are of top quality. Haha! And what’s your point? Does that so-called “Thunderbolt display” affect the way the images, borders, box-shadows and their anti-aliasing is actually calculated? No, it doesn’t. The way these images look is the result of the CSS styling and what the browser makes of such little pixel space through interpolation. I also suppose the original poster has some misunderstanding of what is going on here, because he stresses how common certain display sizes are, but that is completely irrelevant. Mac OS X and the browser will render these images identical for different display sizes with a similar pixel-density.
Alexander V Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Haha! And what’s your point? Does that so-called “Thunderbolt display” affect the way the images, borders, box-shadows and their anti-aliasing is actually calculated? No, it doesn’t. The way these images look is the result of the CSS styling and what the browser makes of such little pixel space through interpolation. I also suppose the original poster has some misunderstanding of what is going on here, because he stresses how common certain display sizes are, but that is completely irrelevant. Mac OS X and the browser will render these images identical for different display sizes with a similar pixel-density. You mentioned lower resolution screens, instead of laughing, may want to try and understand what I am replying to. I ask again, what is your point? This is the same for every browser, screen and so on. This happens to be a fairly large niche set up, I still do not understand why it should be ignored.
opentype Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 … I still do not understand why it should be ignored. Who says it should be “ignored”? And what is “it” exactly? The pictures? The border? The box-shadow? What?I made my points and gave some information what is going on. If you don’t agree with what I said or don’t understand it, please say clearly with which part you have a problem with. Just repeating “what’s your point” wont get us anywhere.
Alexander V Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Who says it should be “ignored”? And what is “it” exactly? The pictures? The border? The box-shadow? What?I made my points and gave some information what is going on. If you don’t agree with what I said or don’t understand it, please say clearly with which part you have a problem with. Just repeating “what’s your point” wont get us anywhere. "Fix what? That display is the result of what the render engine of your OS and/or browser offer. What should IPS do about it?" You seem to be implying IPS shouldn't attempt to correct what is clearly a visual flaw in the display on these screens, and the reason you appear to offer for this doesn't have a clear point in my view.
opentype Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 "Fix what? That display is the result of what the render engine of your OS and/or browser offer. What should IPS do about it?" You seem to be implying IPS shouldn't attempt to correct what is clearly a visual flaw in the display on these screens, and the reason you appear to offer for this doesn't have a clear point in my view. Which “flaw” are you talking about? Be specific! And please explain what “these screens” mean and why that should matter. I already explained that there isn’t anything specific about “these screens”. Thunderbolt Display is just a marketing name of Apple, related to the used cable connection. The output will be the same if you put a 21 inch Samsung screen on your Mac or a 24 inch BenQ or whatever … The OS and browser will calculate the images and borders exactly the same way when the number of used pixels is equal for these profile images.
Nevo Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 There are so many important issues IPS hasn't fixed for many years that bringing up something like this... especially with the mess that is 4.0 is pointless. You are using a super high resolution display that the average person still does not use. Factor in Mobile Devices and there really is nothing you can do. All Browsers display these images this way because of the CSS Styling... which you are always welcome to change.
Woodsman Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 IPS can work on this until the cows produce chocolate milk.Any monitor (It does not matter) set to the correct resolution, video card properly configured and the browser zoom settings set to 100% will show images correctly. When you start changing these settings you will get distortion. I went through this with a friend of mine a few times and may have just beat my head against the wall explaining this same issue.For a good example I can plug into my 42" wide screen TV and see everything in proportion to my 24" wide screen monitor providing my settings are correct. Which all it will take is re-downloading the now deleted drivers. I have already sent this friend of mine a side by side photo with my 24" wide screen res set to 1920 x 1080 (default) and a 15" set to his res 1366 x 768 and he still argued that his was dead on and my setting are off.So my point is no matter what we say or do opentype some people are always right though pictures tell a story...BTW The Ops image is dead on until I change my zoom settings to 150% and above in IE, FF Dev edition and Safari did not try Opera or the standard FF
Cyrem Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 You seem to be implying IPS shouldn't attempt to correct what is clearly a visual flaw in the display on these screens, and the reason you appear to offer for this doesn't have a clear point in my view. You're making yourself look silly. There is nothing for IPS to fix.
David Inga Posted February 6, 2015 Author Posted February 6, 2015 To clarify, the pictures/avatars look the same on my 15" non-retina MacBook Pro. With the rest of the IPB 4.0 looking absolutely wonderful, the pixelation on the images stick out like a sore thumb in my opinion.Perhaps the images look this way because of the css rendering. If this is the case, the fix should be simple.I have not tested the website in other browsers. I failed to mention that I am viewing the website in Safari 8.0.3.Web development is my profession. If there is one thing I can tell you, it's that website designs do not play nicely across browsers. It is necessary to make tweaks for specific browsers.
Woodsman Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 Browser information is an important factor to mention. Now it makes more sense why you may be seeing things as you are. But still a bit puzzeling why your images look fine in my version of Safari and other tested browsers while you are seeing them distorted. You are not by any chance running a higher than 100% to 125% zoom in your browser are you? That seems to be the only way I can replicate a distortion after I go to 150% zoom
Rhett Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 This has nothing to do with what monitor you are using, it's a styling effect that is on the stock skin for profile images, you can alter this as needed via css in your own skin etc. I see the same results using my 27" imac, 15" MBP Retina, and my windows PC's, what the original poster is referring to is the white outline on the round images. It's an easy change with css to customize as needed to suit your own taste. Here is the same image with a quick adjustment as an example
David Inga Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 @Rhett that looks so much better. Yes, I am referring to the round white outline. I understand that we can easily fix this ourselves with CSS. If it is an easy fix, why should it not be adjusted in the stock skin?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.