Mobile Safari scaling down pictures over 2 MP size?

Why is Mobile Safari scaling down pictures over 2 MP (apparently exactly 2000000 pixels) size?
The file size doesn't seem to matter...

Sample 1, JPEG, originally 2179*1000 pixels, being scaled down to 1090*500:
http://www.os-informer.de/screenshots/original/2008/01/k-2-applemacbook_air_photo_picture_galerie_A_3qtrstyopn.jpg
Sample 2, JPEG, 1600*1200, not being scaled down:
http://static.hardwareluxx.de/hardware/akaspar/reviews/macbookair/macbookair_teaserbig.jpg
Sample 3, PNG, 2560*1600, not being scaled down though definitely over 2 MP:
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/200/c/a/MacbookAir_C4D_Model_bySphinXrave.png
Message was edited by: alfrank

Similar Messages

Pictures getting blurry when scaled down in Premiere

I captured some movements on a website to create a howto.
After capturing I edit the clips in Adobe Premiere Pro CS3
In premiere the pictures get scaled down to a workable size, however after the scaling the pictures are very blurry, the texts get unreadable and the edges of picture also get messed up.
Which options do I have to set so that Premiere uses the full quality of the pictures?

Well, since these are pictures, try scaling them down in Photoshop before bringing the images into Premiere. You can use the Bicubic method in Photoshop – or you can try the Bicubic (sharper) method, which may produce better results but can also cause 'ringing' artifacts.
If this is a large-ratio reduction (such as resizing a 3000x2000 image to 720x480 or something) you may find, as I have, that you can get better results with the following type of process:
If the image is 8-bits per channel, convert it to 16-bits per channel
apply a sharpening filter, such as Unsharp Mask with fairly strong settings (say, strength=200% ... radius=0.5 ... threshold=4)
scale the image to the desired size using the normal Bicubic method
convert the image to 8-bits per channel
This process can yield a sharper image with less ringing than the Bicubic (sharper) algorithm. The exact amount of sharpening you should apply will depend on the how much smaller than the original you are scaling the image (a larger ratio requires more sharpening). It also will vary with the content of the image, noise, contrast, etc. -- and personal taste.
Once you've found some settings you like, you can set up an action in Photoshop to automate this process a bit.

Blurry/Scaled Down Artwork Column and Cover Flow are in 9.2

i have noticed on my iMac 27" that the album artwork is really blurry, and when i double click the art work at the left bottom and enlarge it, it looks fine. For some reason Apple scales down the pixel size of images and it looks really blurry. Before it was the standard 600x600 artwork that looked beautiful but not anymore..
This is an infuriating problem as I have taken a lot of time to embed high res art in my fles. The art still remains hi res in the bottom left, but in cover flow or the album artwork column it is a crappy looking blurry image.

I noticed this also. And yes, it infuriates me too. I used to browse my music collection in Cover Flow on a 46" LCD. Not any more since iTunes 9.2. iTunes 9.2 comes with several new features and improvements, including this one: "Album Artwork improvements make artwork appear more quickly when exploring your library".
It turns out that the album artwork cache build by iTunes consists of scaled down copies with a size of 128x128!!! These scaled down copies are used in the album artwork column, grid view, and cover flow. Not much you can do about it except give feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunesapp.html). That's what I did.

Firefox is scaling down the photo sizes, along with chrome and internet explorer but Firefox's photos are usually smaller

I sell products on a site, along with other sellers, that is owned by someone else.
We have many sellers there. Some of us are having problems with how we are able to view the size of our photos taken of our products that are up for sale.
From seller to seller, we have different versions of Firefox that we are using. I have the newest Firefox, which I believe is 4.
I was having, like others who use 4, the same problem seeing smaller photos before I did the upgrade as well.
It seems to be the case for most of us who are having the problem, that Firefox photos scale down smaller than Internet Explorer and Chrome.
We have been told that this may be a browser issue as the site owners say they have not made any changes. At this point we are unsure since there are so many variations from seller to seller (keep in mind that some sellers are not seeing the photos scale down through their computer).
We have asked the site owners to look into this problem further. I also wanted to see what the Firefox community had to say. Do you think it may be a browser issue? We would greatly appreciate your input.
Below are some examples of photos that have been scaled down for the sellers who are seeing a problem with smaller photos while both in Firefox; all using different versions of Firefox:
One photo that was originally the size of 419px by 1, 007px is being seen by one seller to a scaled down size of 81px by 64px.
Another seller is viewing this same photo scaled down to 163px by 329px.
Another seller is able to view this photo as the original size it was intended to be, which is 419px by 1, 007px.
The above scenario has been the worst scaled down size we have heard of so far.
Typically a photo that is the size of 1, 000px by 930px has been scaled down to 420px by 391px.
There are other examples as to size, but you can see that the photos have been scaled down quite a bit.
You can see that it has been scaled down to less than half of the original size. This can pose a real problem for us depending on the type of product that is being photographed.
Thank you!!

Thank you!!

Mobile Safari, Airprint font size

If I use Safari on an iPad, and, Airprint to a Brother MFC-J6710DW, the font size is huge. Let's take google as an example, if I search for something and get the usual 10 results, and, i print that page from mobile Safari via Airprint to my printer, it coems out on THREE pages. That's pretty big text.
Are all Airprint printers this way, i.e., this is just the way Airprint works? Or, is it perhaps something with my printer?

I have not seen this. How is this printer coccented? What iOS Version are you running? Also, just to be sure, you have checked the Brother site and hae the latest FW on your printer?
Can you post a link to a web page that shows a huge font when printed, but not on screen?

After adding 5 pictures the file size is 10x bigger

Hello,
I designed a web site and added 7 pictures (all together 800kb) with layer stack and blending options.
The svg file was 320kb now it' apx. 6mb ...
how to get the file smaller?
Greetings
mamut

You can scale down images to make the file sizes lighter.
Are you using the Clipping Frame (Insert > Media Objects > Clipping Frame) to add images to your file? If so, follow these steps to resize an image. If you are just working with an image in the workspace, without the clipping frames, just use steps 5 and 6 to downsample an image.
1. Double-click on a clipping frame image to enter into editing mode. The percentage indicator on the sliding magnification bar will tell you if the source image is large (12% is a very large image!).
2. Ensure the image is selected and click the Copy button.
3. Exit image editing mode by returning to the Sheet level by clicking in the document breadcrumb.
4. Paste the image into the document. It will be very big on the stage.
5. Scale down the down to a smaller size by grabbing a corner handle and scaling the image, or using Transform and adjusting the WIDTH AND HEIGHT percentages. (Conveniently, if you input 12% into the Width or Height box (while keeping the Lock Aspect Ratio option selected) the image scales down to the same size as the clipping frame you were using previously.)
6. Double-click the image again to enter into Bitmap Image mode and select Transform > Downsample to Screen.
7. Select the image and click the Copy button, then delete the image from the stage.
8. Double-click to get back into your clipping frame.
9. Select the image already in the frame, and delete it.
10. Click the Paste button to insert the new image into the clipping frame. It should display a better percentage such as 98 or 100%.
11. Save the file. You should find the file size to be much smaller now.
OK, looking over that now it is quite the list of things to do to optimize images for the screen. Hopefully there will be an easier way to downsample or optimize images for screen and print in the next coming releases.

When will WebGL be supported on iOS Mobile Safari?

In our enterpirse we have developed a WebGL application using Three.js framework. Now, our customer wants it to run on Apple iPad. The problem is that we have found out that WebGL is only supported on iOS by using iAd. So we are wondering when will WebGL be supported on iOS mobile Safari to decide what to do.
Thanks!

Dunno, it's a bit off topic, but there's no way that an emulated ARM build of flash would even run at all on iOS at the current point, let alone 7 years ago.
It's not that you can't build good flash, it's just that people don't. As you've said, you can use a dumbed down, non-extensible Adobe GUI to spit out javascript, and it'll tank just the same. Adobe Photoshop used to be the most blazingly fast application on the Mac. Adobe are a different story these days. Flash is a resource hog, whereas javascript is outright inefficient at moving graphics around, although it is improving substantially.
Flex, on the other hand, is open source.
Flash was actually created by Adobe. Adobe owned the vector graphics bezier patents, so Macromedia couldn't build a GUI editor for their Shockwave platform, which was sort of C++ territory, for making CD ROMS. Not used a lot because of the manual type of input required.
Macromedia bought flash as a cheapo animation program with some strange usability ideas (such as applying boolean intersects to overlapping objects without asking you), but combining this legally-released and patent-free GUI editor with shockwave export capabilities made shockwave accessible to non-technical users. Who would pile on loads of effects, run it natively as an app to test, and then deploy it in a web plugin which runs far less efficiently. That's not exactly Flash's fault, but the fact that they've just ported it wholesale a whole bunch of times without a proper human rewrite makes for evil performance, a problem you don't have with javascript. You don't have to get what Adobe want to give you as a binary, like it or lump it.
iOS ***** in many ways, the fact that you have to reverse engineer everything and crack if you want to get even the most basic level of customisability and extensibility that you would expect on any decent computer is genuinely frightening. That device could also be up to absolutely anything behind your back, and you'd be none the wiser staring at the GUI. Just trust apple. Or ask somebody who has been prodding around in there with a sharp screwdriver.
Neither Adobe nor Apple have an entirely ideal character for the relationship to have worked. Adobe own a shedload of patents when it comes to the maths behind image processing technology. Adobe Postscript is built into OSX, comes from NeXT. Mr Jobs lost his rag with Adobe when Adobe forced Apple programmers to work on the code related to PostScript in some sort of high security bunker, and wouldn't let them take away anything but binaries. This made the development work a massive hassle. The Apple programmers also suggested that a lot of the code was hidden out of shame rather than out of protectionism. Adobe's real strength is legalised monopolies on basic image processing technology, they've owned it since they turned over Paintbox's patents on alpha blending of pixels.
Been using Apple & Adobe products as my day to day workhorse stuff for over 20 years. Adobe used to be just as bad as the other software firms for generally mean behaviour, but they did write hand-optimised C++, and every year they'd raise the bar with features that you actually need. Each new version would save you weeks in a month.
Post-internet, whole different ballgame. Different setup, $bns at stake now. Land grab for the new ultra-consumerised computer technology. The good thing about consumers is that you can subject them to abuse, they get a yea or nay decision. Do you want what we're giving you?
These sorts of computer industry companies used to be toolmakers for the graphics industry.
Now they're supplying the communications technology for everything. Consumables plugged into every industry in the world. That sort of power is a corrupting influence.

Scaling Down images in Illustrator

I scaled down original images into a file in an illustrator file but the pictures are still the original HUGE picture size. When I scale it down or save the file as a pdf is there anyway to get the size down proportional to the scaled down version? This is going to press so I can't reduce the quality.

Look at the preferences for pdf export, I believe it is under the edit menu. You can set the image reduction there. If necessary, create a new preset with the options you prefer, but one of the pdf-x options should work. (I never tired the pdf-x presets, so I am assuming it would be right).

Vectors fuzzy when scaled down?

Hello.
I'm hoping someone can confirm this for me.
I made a logo in vector form. I have given it to my client who has then sent it off to the printer.
The printer is telling my client that it becomes "fuzzy" when scaled down.
The fonts have all been converted to outlines.
I'm no expert in print design, but is this even possible? Shouldn't the printer be able to scale down a vector with no issues at all? Is there something I am missing here?
Thanks!

It depends on a few things. Have you set the color as Rich Black? Does it over-print? Are there any strokes applied to the text? What is the document's raster resolution set to? Has the person viewing the file known to kick back a few the night before? Kidding aside, outlined text will appear fuzzy reduced down in size. This is a preview artifact and has nothing to do with how the file will appear in output...if it has been setup properly. Everyone has to step back and remember they are looking at a monitor, not the actual hard copy proof. A good print vendor will know the difference and not even bother you unless the fuzziness shows up on a hard copy, prepress proof. That's the time to discuss the problem.

Images saved from Mobile Safari are significantly degraded

When I tried to use an image saved from Mobile Safari as my wallpaper I noticed that it looked horrible. It was blurry and more importantly the dynamic range of the image had been compressed, blowing out all the detail in the bright areas of the image and making it contrastier. This is especially bad on the type of photo I was trying to use, a high-key image, where most of the detail is in the light tones. Much of the image was simply displayed as blank white.
As a test I tried emailing the image I had saved into Photos to myself and compared it to the original I had saved from the web. Sure enough, the image was blurrier and had less dynamic range so it's not just an iPhone display issue. Also, the image was only 27% smaller in file size and the pixel dimensions were actually slightly increased. A quick re-save in Photoshop with JPEG quality set to low (4) reduced the file size by 53% while still not affecting the image anything like what the iPhone did. So it doesn't make sense that the poor quality is only due to resizing for faster transmission.
Can anyone else confirm this or replicate the issue? I've verified this with a 1st gen and 3G iPhone side by side, both running OS 2.1.

No, it's not only you.
I noticed it too. As a matter of fact, I just posted a really long post in a thread about iPhone/iPod Touch's photo quality.
See: http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=8132098#8132098

IOS: Thoughts on scaling down Retina content for iPad 2?

I don't have a non-Retina device to test on (yet. Still early in development on my universal first app), so I was wondering if anyone else is considering scaling Retina content down 50% for non-Retina devices? (iPod Touch 3rd Gen, iPhone 3GS & iPad 2) This method would sure be nicer than having to package a bunch of extra images!
Testing for appearance in Flash CS 5.5, this scaling method seems to work fine, with the exception of small text; (button labels) doesn't look that great. Anybody have some insight or experience with scaling text on these screens? Will it look better on the actual device or should I import native resolution non-Retina elements for the smaller text?
Thanks for helping an iOS noob!

Update since I played with this some more today...
I decided to create new tab/nav bar with buttons at standard (non-Retina display) resolution and call that in for non-Retina devices, while scaling down my app pages 50%. (Larger text seems to look fine when scaled down) I dropped the font on my button labels from Helvetica Neue "medium" to "regular" as well as checking "use device fonts." Both actions seemed to bring a marked improvement on legibility for the small font size (11). Hopefully this will all check out when I get to test it on a real non-Retina device, but I do hear Apple's hardware does a pretty good job at scaling.
Hope this helps someone...

Safari closing down when i go to various sites

Ok,
I noticed this happening recently whenever I'm on myspace, and I try to go some of the groups pages I am a member of. Whenever a page has a moving icon on it, one that loops its movement over and over, Safari shuts down. these are the only sites causing problems. any explanations?
Seems like this started right after i did apple's latest security update. maybe, i think.
Below is the problem report if anyone can understand it.
Thanks in advance,
Greg
Date/Time: 2005-08-24 10:54:05.330 -0400
OS Version: 10.4.2 (Build 8C46)
Report Version: 3
Command: Safari
Path: /Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari
Parent: WindowServer [61]
Version: 2.0 (412.2.2)
Build Version: 1
Project Name: WebBrowser
Source Version: 4120202
PID: 276
Thread: 0
Exception: EXCBADACCESS (0x0001)
Codes: KERNINVALIDADDRESS (0x0001) at 0x00376000
Thread 0 Crashed:
0 com.apple.ImageIO.framework      0x91937aa0 gifFillSubRect + 360
1 com.apple.ImageIO.framework      0x91918b78 gifGetBandProc + 348
2 com.apple.ImageIO.framework      0x91913b3c CGImagePlusUpdateCache + 292
3 com.apple.ImageIO.framework      0x91913884 CGImagePlusCreateImage + 124
4 com.apple.WebKit      0x954325fc -[WebImageData _cacheImages:allImages:] + 148
5 com.apple.WebKit      0x95432548 -[WebImageData imageAtIndex:] + 104
6 com.apple.WebKit      0x95432c74 -[WebImageData drawImageAtIndex:inRect:fromRect:adjustedSize:compositeOperation:context:] + 264
7 com.apple.WebKit      0x95432b58 -[WebImageData drawImageAtIndex:inRect:fromRect:compositeOperation:context:] + 136
8 com.apple.WebKit      0x95432aa4 -[WebImageRenderer drawImageInRect:fromRect:compositeOperator:context:] + 444
9 com.apple.WebCore      0x956be258 QPainter::drawFloatPixmap(float, float, float, float, QPixmap const&, float, float, float, float, int, CGContext*) + 456
10 com.apple.WebCore      0x956be07c QPainter::drawPixmap(int, int, int, int, QPixmap const&, int, int, int, int, int, CGContext*) + 228
11 com.apple.WebCore      0x956bdf88 QPainter::drawPixmap(int, int, QPixmap const&, int, int, int, int, int, CGContext*) + 72
12 com.apple.WebCore      0x956bdf30 QPainter::drawPixmap(QPoint const&, QPixmap const&, QRect const&) + 64
13 com.apple.WebCore      0x956bdc94 khtml::RenderImage::paint(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 2500
14 com.apple.WebCore      0x956bef94 khtml::InlineBox::paint(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 300
15 com.apple.WebCore      0x956be688 khtml::InlineFlowBox::paint(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 556
16 com.apple.WebCore      0x956be688 khtml::InlineFlowBox::paint(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 556
17 com.apple.WebCore      0x956be438 khtml::RootInlineBox::paint(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 36
18 com.apple.WebCore      0x956bd0b0 khtml::RenderFlow::paintLines(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 984
19 com.apple.WebCore      0x956ba118 khtml::RenderBlock::paintObject(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 228
20 com.apple.WebCore      0x956ba020 khtml::RenderBlock::paint(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 296
21 com.apple.WebCore      0x956bba6c khtml::RenderBlock::paintChildren(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 452
22 com.apple.WebCore      0x956ba128 khtml::RenderBlock::paintObject(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 244
23 com.apple.WebCore      0x956bc42c khtml::RenderTableSection::paint(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 652
24 com.apple.WebCore      0x956bbffc khtml::RenderTable::paint(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 492
25 com.apple.WebCore      0x956bba6c khtml::RenderBlock::paintChildren(khtml::RenderObject::PaintInfo&, int, int) + 452
26 com.apple.WebCore      0x956ba128 khtml::RenderBlock

I have the same problem on occasion on Myspace as well. I also have it when i visit weather.com. It is really frustrating. I was told that it could be a result of a program which is not designed for Tiger running while I am browsing the internet. I had an old version of Norton AntiVirus which was not rated for Tiger and once I removed it, the problem almost completely cleared up.
Adam

How To Get Mobile Safari Cascading Dropdown To Refresh?

Hi
I am trying to do a straight forward cascading dropdown for mobile safari. I have this working 100% in safari itself, which shows normal style drop downs. But mobile safari dropdowns have a 'next' button.
Hitting this next button takes you to the next drop down in the cascade with triggering onchange() - thus the next dropdown is empty.
The user is forced to press 'done' to trigger on change, then click on the next dropdown.
Does anyone know a way around this. Or what DOM event is triggered by mobile safari's''next'?
Thanks
M1nd3v3L

try to read the header fields with HTTPConnection.getHeaderField(...)
cheers Karl

Scaled down images look poor

when placing .png files into CS5, they look fine, though as I scale them smaller, once I reach a certain size, they begin to look pixelated and the edges are jagged. Why is this? Why would they look worse at smaller sizes and how can I scale them down without them doing this?
Thanks.

I agree with the last poster, .png is a newer format.
You problem may be with bitmapped graphics previews in Illustrator. The best accuracy of a bitmapped graphic preview is in photoshop at 100% (1 pixel file to 1 pixel monitor). As you zoom in on a scaled down illustrator the preview will get better, as Illustrator uses the bitmapped preview part of the file to display the image, but the interpolation may make thin lines look bolder or thinner when not in a 1 to 1 pixel preview.
Please post an example screenshot if you still need help, and we can answer your question much better.

Scaled down, rendered clips have weird motion blur

I have a project I'm doing in FCP 4.5 on a G5. I have several clips that I have scaled down to 55% and have positioned at even X,Y coordinates. The project is rendered, but I get a weird motion blur happening - like when you're watching a low grade QT movie. I have copied and pasted the sequence into a new project/sequence timeline and re-rendered. I have motion blur selected in my main user preferences (render options) and in the sequence settings (render options).
Any ideas why I'd be having this problem? I don't want to have to go to the length of recapturing the source footage, but I'm almost at that point.
Any thoughts?
Jaimey
Powermac G5 Dual 2Ghz Mac OS X (10.3.9)

Are you monitoring this on an external NTSC monitor or TV? You cannot judge the quality of your images as viewed on the computer screen.
#2 Playback is blurry
Shane's Stock Answer #2:
1. Disable overlays on the canvas
2. Make sure you've rendered everything (no green bars at the top of the timeline
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=24787
DV footage requires large amounts of data and many computations. In order to maintain frame rate and be viewable at a normal size, only about one-fourth of the DV data is used in displaying the movie to the screen. However, the DV footage is still at full quality, and is best viewed thru a TV or NTSC monitor routed thru your camera or deck.
Shane

Mobile Safari scaling down pictures over 2 MP size?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for