|
|
Posted by Peterken on 11/19/28 11:34
"Toby Inkster" <usenet200512@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fmv63-niv.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk...
> Peterken wrote:
>
>> There's another one going around, resizign and even creating form of
>> "fixed"
>> background and working in IE and netscape (dunno for others):
>
> You will notice though that the background appears nasty and pixelated.
> This is because, mostly for speed puposes, browsers do a really bad job of
> resizing images. (Except Opera, which only does a slightly bad job.)
>
> If you want nice smooth curves and flowing lines, your image will have to
> be resized *before* the browser sees it.
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
>
Think that depends on the choice of the original image of course:
I've been using 1600*1200*32 images, and am using 1600*1200*32 screen
setting myself, looks fine in that and in smaller for IE and netscape
I can imagine though that when using 640*400 (or smaller) images to be
stretched and displayed on a 1600*1200 screen it looks just awfull.
My idea : When using a "dynamically stretched image" use one for the highest
expected screen resolution, the lower resolutions won't get worse then.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|