Image quality in safari
The quality of the images is poor in safari. They seem to be shown in 256 colours.
This is clearly a default, except I can't find out how to amend it.
Help please!
It's similar to something I've seen on a friends Windows laptop where IE uses a lower res for pictures to improve download speeds.
That's what it sounds like to me, too, but to my knowledge Safari doesn't have any settings like that. That's why I wondered if you have any Safari enhancer programs or other internet-related add-on programs installed, such as maybe a speed-boosting type of system hack.
Similar Messages
-
Poor image quality in Safari 4.0.3
I've recently experienced a reduction in image quality with 4.0.3. Compared to Firefox it's quite dramatic. Example screenshots:
Firefox: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4387218983be6d453605o.jpg
Safari: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2691/43872162994e77f3f472o.jpg
There is no zooming in use. I've tried resetting Safari. I've restarted the machine. To my knowledge no chances have taken place that caused this, it just seemed to start on it's own two days ago.
Anyone any ideas what is causing it?The way Safari accumulates memory is normal. The way it is trying to page the memory to disc and error-ing is not. I think the integrity of your disc volume / catalog and directories may be to blame.
Try a bit of basic maintenance:
Repairing permissions is important, and should always be carried out both before and after any software installation or update.
Go to Disk Utility (this is in your Utilities Folder in your Application folder) and click on the icon of your hard disk (not the one with all the numbers).
In First Aid, click on Repair Permissions.
This only takes a minute or two in Tiger, but much longer in Leopard.
Background information here:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25751
and here:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302672
An article on troubleshooting Permissions can be found here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2963
By the way, you can ignore any messages about SUID or ACL file permissions, as explained here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1448?viewlocale=en_US
If you were having any serious problems with your Mac you might as well complete the exercise by repairing your hard disk as well. You cannot do this from the same start-up disk. Reboot from your install disk (holding down the C key). Once it opens, select your language, and then go to Disk Utility from the Utilities menu. Select your hard disk as before and click Repair.
Once that is complete reboot again from your usual start-up disk.
More useful reading here:
Resolve startup issues and perform disk maintenance with Disk Utility and fsck
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1417?viewlocale=en_US
For a full description of how to resolve Disk, Permission and Cache Corruption, you should read this FAQ from the X Lab:
http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/repairprocess.html -
Can I improve the image quality in Safari?
As a photographer one of the things I was most looking forward to doing on my iPad was browsing flickr and other photo sites.
Unfortunately safari seems to re-compress the images it displays (to save memory?) and the resulting JPEG artifacts are so distracting that it's not even worth looking at my contacts photos until I'm back on my laptop.
To reproduce this just go to flickr on your normal computer and on the iPad and compare some images - it's a pretty big difference.
I can't see any settings for image quality anywhere. Is there anything I can do, or am I stuck waiting for an iPad version of the Flickr app?jbt99 wrote:
Alley_cat, you're right... I just installed an AirPort last night and over WiFi everything looks fantastic! For the record I'm getting 3G from O2 in the UK, so I guess that means they're compressing the images?
Looks like it.
I've noticed it too on my O2 connection and the image quality is abysmal.
A quick search hasn't yielded a solution - changing the O2 username to bypass in some setups apparently bypasses the proxy, but someone on O2 forums was asking before iPad was released, and the inference was that unless you had a long term contract, all the pay as you go type options didn't allow this to work.
I also tried a different server setting for O2 and it told me I had no allowance left - fortunately this went when I reset the setting.
I may try contacting O2 and would urge others to do so as it really I pairs the user experience.
Vodafone does the same with a USB dongle I have but in theory I can get them to disable the proxy.
Btw, I've just had the chance to have a proper play with my iPad this morning, downloading apps and stuff, and I have to say it's exceeding my expectations in every way (and my expectations were high!). What an amazing machine -
Safari 7 in Mavericks-Web image quality problems?
Suddenly, my browser image quality has gone south. Web page images load, but they are very poor quality, and blocky. I have made no changes to settings, nor updates. Any ideas on how to fix this?
Workaround: the video had been embedded as
<object type="video/quicktime" data="mov.mp4"
height=470 width=550>
</object>
I changed that -- using the HTML 5 video tag instead --
<video height=470 width=550 autoplay>
<source src="mov.mp4" type="video/mp4">
</video>
This works. Perhaps the prior syntax is deprecated? -
Crunmmy photo quality in Safari
I get poor quality photos quality using Safari in any site.No problem with Firefox.My daughter running e-Mac with same Mac system no problem with Safari. New to Mac and a bit disappointed,I thought Mac were the tops for graphics & photos.Any ideas please. Many thanks
Hi Tools,
Try turning off the accelerator, I'll bet that is the culprit.
The accelerators usually downsample the picture quality to reduce the filesize of the images at the expense of quality, but improving speed.
I think they usually work by directing requests to a proxy server - in firefox you normally have to set this manually which may be why it appears to work fine, but Safari doesn't.
Enjoy your sleep and catch you tomorrow... -
Fix blurry images downloaded from Safari (The semi-easy way)
Hi, I've noticed a couple of people around here have had problems with image quality (blurry images) whenever an image was saved to the camera roll from Safari.
Turns out, there is a simple fix for this!
This fix requires a drawing app such as Brushes (Or any drawing app where you can take an image from your camera roll, and save to your camera roll).
Now, just open the image that is blurry in the selected drawing app.
Notice anything? The image is no longer blurry! Woo!
Now just save the image back to your camera roll, and delete the old blurry image. You won't be needing it anymore.
Problem solved.
(I think opening the picture in the drawing app reduces the size of said picture, making it less blurry. I'll try this the next time I find a blurry image to see the changes in quality. I'll also include a picture guide for those that don't understand how to do this (But would you really need it :P))
Hope this helps all that have this problem!Like I said, I noticed a lot of people having this problem, so I decided to post this to hold everyone over until the problem is fixed. Maybe this problem will secretly be fixed in the 3.0 update? It certainly is easier and quicker than uploading the blurry photo itself into a program such as Photoshop and editing the dimensions there.
-
Full image resolution in Safari
Safari doesn't render images at their full resolution, so even zooming won't get you a 1:1 pixel mapping. It helps to "Save" an image to the picture roll and view it in the Photos app, but that's so much work.
Isn't there a way to view only the image, like desktop Safari can? I just want to read a web comic, nothing huge.No, I know exactly what is going on here. Back in december I was away on vacation and was using my iPad to copy all the raw images from my camera SD cards over to a ftp at home. I after the first few attempts I was noticing I was "uploading" a 5kX3k image in resolution, but mobile safari would only have a greatly reduced image uploaded. Luckily I was able to check on a laptop and saw that all my EXIF data was being preserved with the original image resolution. What I believe is happening is that the Mobile Safari in iOS devices have a scaling function on images so that it will preserve some of the image quality without having to wait for long periods of time to load an image. Your images are still the same size as the original upload, it is optimizing the image for viewing because you should not need a 1:1 pixel representation of LARGE images in mobile safari, if you do then you should be using a different device.
-
Homepage and iPhoto upload image quality
When I use the 'homepage' option within iPhoto 5 to create an online gallery the images look brilliant using Safari on my iMac G5, however when viewed by PC users with IE6 the images seem to be quite dark.
Can I do anything with either of these applications to correct this, or do I have to manually adjust the Gamma in ImageReady for each individual photo?..
Any help greatly appreciated
Thanks in advance ..Nick:
What are the sizes of the images you're starting with? If you're not adverse to manually uploading the image files in a folder into the Pictures folder on your iDisk and building the web page thru Safari you can fine tune your images like i do. I use the Share->Export->Web Page (actually I've added the BetterHTMLExport plugin to iPhoto for much better control over image quality) and then upload the folder of images that are created on your desktop. I give the containing folder a significant name so it's easy to find with Safari in the Homepage section.
With BetterHTMLExport there's an option to export the images only to a folder you create on the desktop. That speeds up the process a bit.
Hope this has been of some help. Good luck.
OT -
When my iPod touch displays an album artwork when playing a song, the picture seems to lose quality as in(the picture seems to have numerous dots in some areas of the image);it's not stuck/dead pixels by the way. The same thing happens in the photos menu but the quality seems to be a 'little' better than the same image displayed as an album artwork.
I was wondering if all of the ipods have dots in certain areas of an image?
(I don't think the size of the images really matter)
+ The dots seem to be gone when I view the image directly from safari(not the photos or music menu).
If you guys can tell me if you have the same issue as mine that would be appreciated,
thanks.No. The Mac has no magic to impart to the touch over the PC here, because you're sending the same image to it. What you are referring to is that the touch can accept a PSD file (Mac only). This is a Photoshop format. It isn't intrinsically better than a jpeg or any other allowable format as far as displaying it on the touch is concerned.
The quality of your image also is a bit irrelevant too (sorry) because iPod treats all photos in the same way and limits how much you can ultimately get out of it on screen. So a really high res photo and a good one may appear the same on the iPod in the end. To learn more about what the iPod (including the touch) does to photos see:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/the-complete-guide-to-ipod-ph oto-pictures/ -
I am using the Firefox 3.6.3 version with my new Windows 7 operating system. When I used all the previous Firefox versions in my XP and Vista operating systems, image quality and resolution was excellent! However, now that I have upgraded to Windows 7 and Firefox 3.6.3, the image quality and resolution is poor (unacceptable for downloading purposes).
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== I first activated my new computer and installed the Firefox 3.6.3.All my images are pixelated in firefox 3.6.3
http://www.dcgdcreative.com
Not only on my site but on most sites I view.
The issue is not solved by resetting the zoom text view (ctrl+0)
The issue is not resolved by starting in safemode with add-ons disabled
The problem seems to only affect .jpeg files and only on Windows 7 on my desktop; as I have viewed several sites using windows XP with my laptop, no issues.
I had the same issue with IE8 and was able to fix the problem with by setting up the compatibility view for all sites. Issue fixed no problems at all. But nothing similar for firefox?
Whats the deal? -
I want to make a DVD of a slide-show with an audio track behind the photographs. I have carefully followed the iDVD video tutorials but the result is far from satisfactory. The quality of the images on the resulting DVD are blurred and indistict although the original photographs are of a very high quality. Where am I going wrong? Would I have better results from a different program than the inbuilt iDVD and if so so what programs have others found to be better? I should be grateful for some expert guidance.
Hey Falcopebo,
Thanks for using Apple Support Communities.
Looks like you have image quality issues when using iDVD to burn.
iDVD 7.0: Burned DVD has interlacing, pixelation, or image quality issues
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4078
A standard DVD made by iDVD is made to the standard DVD resolution of 720 X 480, which is smaller than most HDTVs and monitors. When expanded to fit the entire screen or monitor, the image will distort slightly due to upscaling to fit the screen or monitor.
Have a nice day,
Mario -
What is the best online storage for photos. Specifically one that allows the original image quality to be downloaded should your hard storage goes belly up
I'd put them on an external hard drive(s) and burn them to a DVD as well (at least 2 - 3 copies on different drives/media); I prefer having control and a local solution instead of relying on a server and the possibility of someone (who shouldn't be) downloading my work.
-
NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1
Sure, LR now launches faster and the interface looks a bit nicer. And the more capable sharpening controls and the clarity slider which mimics contrast enhancement with USM are nice additions, but has anyone else notice what happened to the image quality?
First, while formerly LR and ACR struck a great balance between detail and noise suppressionerring on the side of maintaining detail even at the expense of slightly higher noise levelsit appears the goal for the redesign has been to minimize the appearance of noise at all costs. It just so happens that yesterday afternoon, I'd shot some available light candids (up to ISO 800) of the staff at a local health care facility and was intent on using them as a trial run on Lightroom 1.1. Well, the difference in image quality jumped right out at me: there was no granular noise at all remaining, even in the ISO 800 shots, but neither was there any fine detail. I use a Canon 5D, and while I'm accustomed to slightly higher levels of chroma noise, images up to ISO 1600 in even the worse lighting are always full of fine detail. Fine structures like strands of hair and eye lashes have now lost their delicacy, and have instead become coarse, unnaturally painterly analogs. Looking into shadow areas, I can see the results of what seems to be luminance noise smearing at work, obliterating noise and detail along with it. I never used Raw Shooter because I'm a Mac user (2x2GHz G5 w/2GB RAM and 250GB HD), but if this is the result of incorporating Pixmantic's technology, the result is not a positive one from my standpoint. The images I shot yesterday are to be cropped to 4:5 proportions, then printed 20" x 25", at which size the processing artifacts and lack of fine detail in these LR1.1 conversions becomes even more apparent. I've even tried turning off all image processing options: Clarity, Sharpening and NR (neither of which I ever use in RAW conversion, anyway)... It simply seems this noise smearing is part of the baseline RAW processing, and it really, really bites. Am I missing something? Is there some way to actually turn off this processing that looks uncomfortably like the "watercolor" noise reduction that Kodak and Panasonic use for their compact digicams. Yuck!
Secondly, is there a way to get back the suppression of hot and stuck pixels that LR used to perform? Now, my high ISO files are riddled with them, the same as they would be when converted with Aperture or Canon's DPP. Default suppression of hot and stuck pixels was a major advantage of LR/ACR, and contributed in no small bit to my adoption of LR as my standard tool for RAW conversion due to the amount of high ISO, low light photography I do. What's even worse, is that the random-color speckles are now smudged into the image along with all the other noise data that's being smoothed out, resulting in images that looks more like impressionist paintings than photographs.
I thought about reinstalling LR1.0 and just continuing to use that, but if LR1.1 is an indication of the direction Adobe is going to take in the development of the software, I really don't see the point of continuing to use the softwareparticularly when I had a few existing problems with LR1.0 that were never resolved, such as crashing during the import of photos from a memory card and progressively slower preview rendering as the size of my library increased. So, I'm probably going to go back to using Aperture, which is itself not free of IQ foibles, but certainly looks much more attractive now in comparison to LR1.1.
Anybody notice the same things with IQ? Anybody got any suggestions of how to get more natural-looking conversions before I remove LR and go back to Aperture?Jeff,
I mean no disrespect. But I would like to see samples of 1.1 compared to 1.0 of the same image (ISO 400, and/or 800), because I do not want to convert my library to a catalog until I know whether or not I like the image quality. Why is it so hard to get one good sample. That is all I am asking. I would just rather not jump through hoops to go back to 1.0 if I do not like 1.1....That is all
And yes, after well over 400 printed articles I can tell what an image will look like in print when I view it 1:1.... I can tell if the eyelashes or pores on someones face, the detail in a rug, or wood grain will be detailed on the off set printed page if I look at the image at 1:1 and see smudging...this means to me that the most detail possible is NOT going to translate to the page. If however I CAN see detail in those types of areas, clearly (ie no smudging), than I know that I will see those fine details on the page. If these fine details were not important than we would all still be shooting with 3 and 4 mp cameras. Those fine details that are only visible to our eyes at a 1:1 preview on screen, are important on the printed page.
Oh, and I am not chest thumping. You can check my history here, I do not have a history of that type of activity. I am simply asking to see samples before I update....
I am very discriminating Pro, not some over testing, too much time on my hands, complaining , over paid amateur who only has time to complain that their test chart is out of focus. Or that they can measure toooo much noise at ISO what ever, instead of actually making photos. I actually make my living taking photos. And my clients have come to expect a certain level of quality from me. They comment all the time how much higher quality my images are than some of the other photogs they use. And I am still shooting a D60, where as these others are shooting 5d's and D2X's.
Jeff, I am not against you or Adobe. Matter of fact, I LOVE LR. It has changed my work flow in a very positive direction. I think it is wonderful. I just want one sample.... I am asking nicely: Please with sugar on top :)
If you can't give me a sample, than please at least reassure me that it will be easy to go back to 1.0 for the time being. Is it as easy as uninstalling 1.1, reinstalling 1.0 and recovering my DB from a current backup? If so, than fine, I will go this route........... If not, than I am hoping for a sample.
Thank you very kindly Jeff for engaging in this lively conversation. I do appreciate your comments and participation on this forum. And please note that none of this is said with attitude or malice. I know that some times a writers intent or emotional state is easy to misinterpret in a forum like this. So please know that I am calm and not angry, just curious about image quality.
Ok. I will shut up now. Thanks again -
Secondary Display image quality is poor (at 1:1) in Library module
I'm not a frequent user of the Secondary Display feature, so I can't say state whether this particular issue is new in 2.3RC or if it also was seen in a previous version. I submitted a bug report since I searched but did not find any previous mention of this sort of thing. Anyone else notice this?
Here's my problem: When I'm using LR's Develop module and activate the Secondary Display (SD) window, the SD images for all zoom ratios seem identical in quality (sharpness. color) to the images seen in the main screen--as expected. However when I switch over to Library module and use 1:1 zoom, the SD image becomes relatively degraded (i.e., quite blurry/pixelated) compared to the main window. When SD is set at the lower zoom ratios (still in Library module) its quality seems fine--i.e., more or less indistinguishable from the main screen. It's only when SD is used at 1:1 in the Library module that it appears "buggy".
I'm using a Mac Power PC G4, OSX 10.4.11.
Phil
P.S. I should mention that the image quality at 1:1 zoom in Library Module's Secondary Display is not only worse than the main Library screen, it's also significantly worse (less sharp) than seen in the Develop module--and that's certainly not unexpected.>Gordon McKinney:What happens is the second display doesn't render a 1:1 for optimal sharpness.
For me it isn't just sharpness. I can make a change that is fairly radical and have it show up immediately in the main monitor--both in the navigation panel and in the main display panel. The image on the 2nd monitor remains unchanged.
If I then use the history panel to move back to the previous state and then re-select the final state the image on the secondary display
usually, not always gets updated. Sometimes it takes a 2nd or a third cycle from previous to latest history state. This 'missed update' in the 2nd monitor doesn't happen 100% of the time, but it does happen quite often.
LR 2.3RC, Vista Ultimate x64, 8GB DRAM, nVidia 9800 GTX+ with latest drivers. -
Adobe Premiere Elements 11 - HOW DO I KEEP THE IMAGE QUALITY WHEN I RENDER?
I'm using Adobe Premiere Elements 11, on a Windows 8 PC and when I "render" still pictures, some videos and simple effects -- they lose quality and get grainy --
HOW DO I KEEP THE IMAGE QUALITY WHEN I RENDER?Molnar are you receiving that error during the download or install process? Also which operating system are you using?
Maybe you are looking for
-
I can't find my Time Capsule on my networks anymore. It's like it doesn't exist. We got hit by a storm and that might have caused our internet modem from ATT to fry. I replaced the modem today but now my Time Capsule isnt working. It's blinking am
-
ok, so I transferred my 3S info to my 4S by restoring from an old phone backup. But SIRI is gone and god knows what else?? Can I get my old stuff into the new phone and keep the 4S new functionality?
-
I have a new MacBook Pro. I want to TRANSFER my entire iTunes library to this new Mac from old PC. I do not want to SHARE. Is this possible? If so, can anyone help? All information is appreciated. Thanks!
-
Quality score and vendor evaluation?
Dear Sapient, Can any one help me to know how quality score in QA11 or QA12 is hitting vendor evaluation programs? Regards, Kaushal Rai
-
[SOLVED] makepkg/scons problem
okay this is the first time i've tired to install something from AUR and i keep getting this ==> Making package: toluapp 1.0.93-5 (Mon Jun 27 22:16:47 EDT 2011) ==> Checking runtime dependencies... ==> Checking buildtime dependencies... ==> Retrievin