Anything Forums

new sig Looks fine to me, but I don't know about anyone else. Saved it as a PNG-24, cause it was the only way I could get decent transparency. Don't know how widespread the adoption of that format is right now, but firefox ain't having any trouble with it.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17360

manadren wrote: new sig Looks fine to me, but I don't know about anyone else. Saved it as a PNG-24, cause it was the only way I could get decent transparency. Don't know how widespread the adoption of that format is right now, but firefox ain't having any trouble with it.

IE does not support PNG transparency. KHTML, Gecko, and Opera do. PNGs are great...


There is a way to work around the transparency issues in IE though. Since all your signatures will always have the same background colour in posts, you can insert a background tag in your PNG images. IE will apply whatever background that is in that tag, but other browsers will ignore it since they know how to do transparency anyway.

[s]#d0d0d0 is the background colour for your signatures I believe[/s], and the RGB equilivant of that is (208,208,208). You can download TweakPNG to insert that background tag. It's entirely free and there's no install. Just unzip and run... Then, from the menu bar select "Insert" and then pick the first option. [s]In the dialogue that comes up, enter 208 for the red, green, and blue values.[/s]

Actually, here is your signature that has these things applied. Plus, the size has been lowered 14% with no quality loss thanks to OptiPNG.

I can't attach PNGs here...

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17363

Oops... That is not the correct background colour for signatures. Sorry... Give me a moment.

EDIT: Okay, I think the image linked to in my previous post is correct now.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17364

yeah ie sucks with pngs. it also gets the shading wrong. the exact image saved as jpg and png willl be shaded differently.

btw I'm semi-working on the board png problem.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17365

yeah ie sucks with pngs.  it also gets the shading wrong.  the exact image saved as jpg and png willl be shaded differently.

btw I'm semi-working on the board png problem.

This was not a yes or no question. I don't think very many people do that. can certainly understand that. ho told you that?OK. I don't think very many people do that. am so glad you find this amusing, Undefined.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17366

Red Squirrel wrote: yeah ie sucks with pngs. it also gets the shading wrong. the exact image saved as jpg and png willl be shaded differently.

btw I'm semi-working on the board png problem.

I've never had that problem. Did you enable gamma correction when you saved those PNGs?

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17371

I've never had that problem.  Did you enable gamma correction when you saved those PNGs?

What happened to it?
No I didn't enable gamma correction when you saved those PNGs. What's

enable gamma correction when you saved those PNGs

like?

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17372

Where's the option for that in photoshop? Check my business site you'll see what I mean. http://services.iceteks.com. all images are pngs but the logo, and you can easly see the big difference. Only in IE, in mozilla it looks like it should

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17373

Thanks taka I tested it out in IE and it's looking good though hardcoding a bg color into the image kinda defeats the purpose of making it transparent in the first place ' But I probably won't use that particular sig outside this board anyway, I made a few alternate versions at the same time. Thanks for compressing it to, Photoshop isn't exactly known for good PNG compression. I've got a copy of pngcrush, but I haven't yet learned how to use it effectively. Too much about the png spec I haven't read up on yet. Now if only Ms would pull their heads out of their behinds and actually start supporting things that they don't design themselves

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17374

manadren wrote: Now if only Ms would pull their heads out of their behinds and actually start supporting things that they don't design themselves

So true! They need to learn there's more out there then what they do. There *is* successfull things out there, you just need to look outside of microsoft to find them.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17375

Red Squirrel wrote: Where's the option for that in photoshop? Check my business site you'll see what I mean. http://services.iceteks.com. all images are pngs but the logo, and you can easly see the big difference. Only in IE, in mozilla it looks like it should

I have no idea... Sorry...


Yeah, I hate that we have to work around IE like that, Manadren... PNG is a great image format. MNGs (animated PNGs basically) are great too, but only KHTML browsers support it I believe. Gecko browsers did support it, but it was taken out.

I don't have school tomorrow!

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17378

hmm I thought I saw an mng extension for da mozfire[animal]. Though I didn't install it so I don't know how well it works.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17379

manadren wrote: hmm I thought I saw an mng extension for da mozfire[animal]. Though I didn't install it so I don't know how well it works.

Yes, there is one. I haven't tried it, but I'm sure it works like it should. For MNGs to catch on, support needs to be built in though. Gone are the days when Mozilla / Firebird theme developers could use a MNG throbber without worry...

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17380

takahita_tsukino wrote:

manadren wrote: hmm I thought I saw an mng extension for da mozfire[animal]. Though I didn't install it so I don't know how well it works.

Yes, there is one. I haven't tried it, but I'm sure it works like it should. For MNGs to catch on, support needs to be built in though. Gone are the days when Mozilla / Firebird theme developers could use a MNG throbber without worry...

I looked it up. But by the user comments it seems kinda flakey right now. Either it requires a file that is no longer part of current mozillafirefox builds, or it flat out doesn't work So try it at your own risk. I think I'll wait for the next release.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17381

I don't think you will need MNG support anyway... Thankfully, I have Mozilla 1.4.1 still on my PC, and that was released before they took support out. So I can just open that up when I feel like playing with MNG.

There are a lot of people against the removal of MNG support. I guess that doesn't matter to the developers. I think it was taken out because of size, but it couldn't have added that much.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17382

And if you need to install something for it to work, it's not worth it, since if you use it, maybe 1% of internet users will have that plugin installed. I can't believe how many people are stuck on IE being the only browser. I was there not so long ago, now IE makes me puke. Ok, not that bad. 6.0 ain't too bad, I have not tried higher versions but I assume they are as good or better, but mozilla still beats them all, more options. Tabbed browsing, standard support etc.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17383

Red Squirrel wrote: And if you need to install something for it to work, it's not worth it, since if you use it, maybe 1% of internet users will have that plugin installed.

true, but I think MNG will come around eventually, because it is opensource [it is open source, right? ]. Because it is open it will be continually improved upon, until some innovative programmer comes up with a use for it that no one thought of before, or some big software developer opts for the format to save money. At which point existing software will be forced to support it natively. Well I hope so anyway

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17388

manadren wrote:

Red Squirrel wrote: And if you need to install something for it to work, it's not worth it, since if you use it, maybe 1% of internet users will have that plugin installed.

true, but I think MNG will come around eventually, because it is opensource [it is open source, right? ]. Because it is open it will be continually improved upon, until some innovative programmer comes up with a use for it that no one thought of before, or some big software developer opts for the format to save money. At which point existing software will be forced to support it natively. Well I hope so anyway

Yep, MNG is completely open source.

I think GIMP 2.0 Final will have MNG functionality built in.

http://www.mukund.org/oldstuff.html wrote:
/gimp/mng/ - The GIMP MNG plug-in
The GIMP MNG plug-in was made available seperately for beta testing purposes before it could be included into the main GIMP development tree. It is now a part of the GIMP 1.3.x development tree and will be available in a mainstream stable release when GIMP 2.0 is released. There are instructions on how to download the developers' version of GIMP's source code.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17420

would be nice to see it standardlized in all browsers though, same with png, since it is not fully standardlized, or is IE the only browser that can't support them properly?

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17421

would be nice to see it standardlized in all browsers though, same with png, since it is not fully standardlized, or is IE the only browser that can't support them properly?

Yes.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17422

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17423

What are you wearing?


Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17424

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17430

Where is everyone??..........

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17432

katinamarie72 wrote: Where is everyone??..........

I'm here.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:578, old post ID:17433