Related
Back in 199[456] I was using Linux and a Matrox graphics adapter. For programming I often used the text mode and didn't bother to boot into X11. These graphics cards allowed for really high text resolutions and still had a very readable font. Occasionally I'd like to test if this font would work well for programming on X11 -- but I cannot find this font to give it a try!
I have searched intensively, for example here, but no font seems to look like the Matrox one. So, the questions:
which font was used? Was it the regular console font that just looked better on those graphic cards?
is this font available for X11? Which one is it?
Any examples / screenshots?
I'd be very glad if anyone could explain if I'm just hallucinating or if my memories are accurate.
UPDATE: I've since found a good resource. Selecting the font Px437_IBM_VGA_8x16.ttf and setting the terminal to 12px comes pretty close to my memories. Since monitor resolutions are much higher now, the font becomes pretty tiny, and scaling it up looks somewhat wrong. I will have to experiment.
This site dumps the ROMs of several old VGA BIOS chips and locates the bitmaps used by the character generator. There's a Matrox card from 1993 in there, but the fonts look quite ordinary to me.
What software or environment were you using, out of curiosity?
Also, have you made any progress on this subject on any other sites? I'm very curious as I'm going to be embarking on a highly relevant project at some point in the future.
I just found this font online -> http://webdraft.hu/fonts/classic-console/
maybe it will help.
I need to make a screenshot of my form created in QT designer. There are numerous approaches to do screenshots(gimp, import, etc..) but alt of them deal with same dpi as on my monitor(about 100dpi). This is quite enough to publish on web site, but 300dpi images are required for paper publications. Are there any ways to create 300dpi screenshots?
I don't think that the 300dpi requirement for publication applies to things like screenshots, where the data is inherently pixelated. It's meant for things like graphs that can and should be generated in a vector format.
Just get the best results you can, and only use screenshots for things that are absolutely necessary, and not, for example, commandline I/O or results graphs.
If the final images are being shown smoothed and blurry, either find settings in your PDF creator to prevent this, or manually blow up the image to a multiple of its original size to preserve the original sharp pixelation.
Painting can be done on any QPaintDevice, which includes QPrinter. If you wanted to, you could set up painting redirection to a given device, then have the widget repaint itself. This might give you the higher precision you desire. For more information, look on Qt's website for the Paint System overview, and also maybe look at the QPixmap::grabWidget functions.
You can not grab screenshot in a best resolution than the one of your monitor. DPI has no sense in computer display. Some software convert pixel per point (ppp) to dot per inch (dpi) for paper publication.
Once you have made your screenshots, you can convert them to 300 dpi using a software like photoshop or equivalent.
You can't have more pixels on your screenshot than your widget displays.
For a given widget size (say 900x900px) you can have your image printed at 300dpi, but it will only make a 3 inch square on your paper.
You can force your screen to behave as a 4K display with the command:
xrandr --output eDP1 --rate 40.01 --mode 1366x768 --fb 4096x3072 --panning 4096x3072
remmember to fit the rate and the mode fields as stated from your default xrandr configuration. You can see that with xrandr
and then acquire the screenshot with
import -window root imagefile.png
Like any responsible developer, I'd like to make sure that the sites I produce are accessible to the widest possible audience, and that includes the significant fraction of the population with some form of colour blindness.
There are many websites which offer to filter a URL you feed it, either by rendering a picture or by filtering all content. However, both approaches seem to fail when rendering even moderately complex layouts, so I'd be interested in finding a client-side approach.
The ideal solution would be a system filter over the whole screen that can be used to test any program. The next best thing would be a browser plugin.
I came across Color Oracle and thought it might help. Here is the short description:
Color Oracle is a colorblindness simulator for Windows, Mac and Linux. It takes the guesswork out of designing for color blindness by showing you in real time what people with common color vision impairments will see.
Color Oracle is great, but another option is KMag, which is part of KDE in Linux. It's ostensibly a screen magnifier, but can simulate protanopia, deuteranopia, tritanopia and achromatopsia.
It differs from Color Oracle by requiring an additional window in which to display the re-coloured image, but an advantage is that one can modify the underlying image at the same time as previewing the simulation.
Here is a screenshot showing the original figure on the left, and the KMag window on the right, simulating protanopia.
Here's a link to a website that simulates various kinds of color blindness:
http://www.vischeck.com/
They let you check URL's and Screenshots with three kinds of different color blindness types (URL checking is a bit dated though. Image-check works better).
I'd encourage everyone to check their applications btw. Seeing your own app with others eyes may be an eye opener (pun intended).
I know this is a quite old question, but I've recently found an interesting solution to transparently simulate color blindness.
When working with Linux, you can simulate color blindness using the Color Filter plugin for Compiz. It comes with profiles for deuteranopia and protonopia und changes the colors of the whole screen in real-time.
It's very nice because it works transparently in all applications (even within Youtube-Videos), but it will only work where Compiz is available, e.g. only under Linux.
Here's an article that has some guidelines for optimizing UI for color blind users:
Particletree » Be Kind to the Color Blind
It contains a link to another article with the kind of tools you were asking for:
10 colour contrast checking tools to improve the accessibility of your design | 456 Berea Street
A great paper that explains a conversion that preserves color differences is:
Detail Preserving Reproduction of color images for Monochromats and Dichromats.(PDF)
I haven't implemented the filter, but I plan to when I have some more free time.
I found Colour Simulations easy to use on Windows 10. This software can apply a color-blind filter to a part of the screen or the whole screen. And what's great is it allows me to interact with my PC normally as if it doesn't exist in fullscreen mode. It runs quite slow in my 4K screen using an integrated graphics card, though.
My custom homebrew photography processing software, running on 64 bit Linux/GNU, writes out PNG and TIFF files. These are to be sent to a quality printing shop to be made into fine art. Working with interior designers - it's important to get the colors just right!
The print shops usually have no trouble with TIFF and PNGs made from commercial software such as Photoshop. Even though i have the TIFF 6.0 specs, PNG specs, and other info in hand, it is not clear how to include color calibration data or implement color management system on linux. My files are often rejected as faulty, without sufficient error reports to make fixes.
This has been a nasty problem for a while for many. Even my contacts at the Hollywood postproduction studios are struggling with this issue. One studio even wanted to hire me to take care of their color calibration, thinking i was the expert - but no, i am just as blind and lost as everyone!
Does anyone know of good code examples, detailed technical information, or have any other enlightenment? Or time to switch to pure Apple?
Take a look at LittleCMS
http://www.littlecms.com/
This page has the code for applying it to TIFF
http://www.littlecms.com/newutils.htm
The basic thing you need to know is that Color profile data is something you need to store in the meta-data of the file itself.
There is a consultant called Charles Poynton who specialises in this area. I work for one of the post production studios you mention (albeit in london not hollywood), and have seen him speak on the subject a couple of times. His website contains a lot of the material he presents and you might find something of use there. He also has a book called Digital Video and HDTV Algorithms and Interfaces which is not as heavy as the title might suggest! While these resources might not answer your question directly, it might provide a spring board to other solutions.
More specifically, which libraries are you using to write the png and tif files - you mention they are homebrew, but how custom are they exactly? Postprocessing the images in an image manipulation program (such as ImageMagick or dcraw) might allow you to inject this information into the header more successfully.
Sorry, I don't have any specific answers, but maybe something that will point you a bit further in the right direction...
As a GNU/Linux user, you’ll want to consider DispcalGUI – http://dispcalgui.hoech.net/ – a GNOME-based GUI that centralizes color management, ICC profile management, and (crucially for your case) device calibration. It can talk to well-known pro- and mid-level hardware, e.g, i1, X-Rite, Spyder, etc.
But before you get into that – you say you are generating your files to spec; are you validating your output using a test suite specific to the format in question? If not, here are three to get you started:
imagetestsuite supports the well-known formats: https://code.google.com/p/imagetestsuite/w/list?can=1&q=
The Luminous* test suite is a JIRA plugin, if that’s your thing: https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.luminouslead.plugin.jira.testsuite.LuminousTestSuite
FLOSS Decoder implementations often have one you can use, i.e. OpenJPEG – https://code.google.com/p/openjpeg/wiki/TestSuiteDocumentation
But even barring all of those, it seems like your problem is with embedded ICC data – which is two specs in one. First, there’s the host image-file format, and they all handle embedding differently (meaning the ICC data will likely look totally different when embedded in a TIFF than, say, a JPEG or WebP file). Second, there is the ICC spec itself. It is documented here: http://color.org/v4spec.xalter – and you may also want to look at the source for the aforementioned dispcalGUI, which includes a very legible and hackable ICC profile class in Python: http://sourceforge.net/p/dispcalgui/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/dispcalGUI/ICCProfile.py
Full disclosure: I have contributed to that very ICC profile class, to which I just linked in that last ¶
That’s the basics (many of which you have no doubt covered)... beyond that, if you post more information about what exactly is going wrong, I’d be interested to look it over. Good luck with it either way.
* NB. This project is unrelated to the long-standing photography website, “the Luminous Landscape”
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
When doing small icons, header graphics and the like for websites, is it better to use GIFs or PNGs?
Obviously if transparency effects are required, then PNGs are definitely the way to go, and for larger, more photographic images I'd use JPEGs - but for normal web "furniture", which would you recommend and why? It may just be the tools I'm using, but GIF files usually seem to be a bit smaller than a comparible PNG, but using them just seems so 1987.
As a general rule, PNG is never worse, and often better than GIF because of superior compression. There might be some edge cases where GIF is slightly better (because the PNG format may have a slightly larger overhead from metadata) but it's really not worth the worry.
It may just be the tools I'm using, but GIF files usually seem to be a bit smaller than a comparible PNG
That may indeed be due to the encoding tool you use.
/EDIT: Wow, there seem to be a lot of misconceptions about PNG file size. To quote Matt:
There's nothing wrong with GIFs for images with few colours, and as you have noticed they tend to be smaller.
This is a typical encoding mistake and not inherent in the format. You can control the colour depth and make the PNG file as small. Please refer to the relevant section in the Wikipedia article.
Also, lacking support in MSIE6 is blown out of proportion by Chrono:
If you need transparency and can get by with GIFs, then I'd recommend them because IE6 supports them. IE6 doesn't do well with transparent PNGs.
That's wrong. MSIE6 does support PNG transparency. It doesn't support the alpha channel (without a few hacks), though but this is a different matter since GIFs don't have it at all.
The only technical reason to use GIFs instead of PNGs is when use need animation and don't want to rely on other formats.
The W3C mention 3 advantages of PNG over GIF.
• Alpha channels (variable
transparency),
• Cross-platform gamma correction
(control of image brightness) and
color correction
• Two-dimensional interlacing (a
method of progressive display).
Also, have a look at these resources for guidance:
PNG v's GIF (W3C Guidance)
PNG FAQ
Wow, I'm really suprised with all the wrong answers here. PNG-8 will always be smaller than GIF when properly optimized. Just run your PNG-8 files through PngCrush or any of the other PNG optimization routines.
The key things to understand:
PNG8 and GIF are lossless <= 256 colors
PNG8 can always be smaller than GIF
GIF should never be used unless you need animation
and of course,
Use JPG for black&white or full color photographic images
Use PNG for low color, line art, screenshot type images
The main reason to use PNG over GIF from a legal standpoint is covered here:
http://www.cloanto.com/users/mcb/19950127giflzw.html
The patents have apparently expired as of 2004, but the idea that you can use PNG as open-source over GIF is appealing to many people.
(png open source reference: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-09-09-021-04-PS)
Be careful of color shifts when using PNG. This link gives an example, and contains many more links with further explanation:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/GammaCorrectionAndColorCorrectionPNGIsStillTooHard.aspx
GIF images are not subject to this problem.
I don't think it makes a lot of difference (customers don't care). Personally I would choose PNGs because they are a W3C standard.
Be cautious with the PNG transparency effects: they don't work with IE6.
For images on the web, each format has its pros and cons. For photograph-type images (ie lots and lots of colours, no hard edges) use a JPEG.
For icons and the like, you have a choice between PNG and GIF. GIFs are limited to 256 colours. PNGs can be formatted like GIFs (ie 256 colours, with 1-bit transparency that will work in IE6), but for small images they're slightly larger than GIFs. 24-bit PNGs support both a large gamut, and alpha transparency (although it's troublesome in IE6).
PNGS are your only really sensible choice for things like screenshots (ie, both lots of colours and hard edges), and personally, that's what I stick with most of the time, unless I have something for which JPEG is more suitable (like a photo).
Indexed PNG (less than 256 colors) is actually always smaller than gif, so I use that most of the time.
For computer generated graphics (i.e. drawn by yourself in Photoshop, Gimp, etc.) JPG is out of the question, because it is lossy - i.e. you get random gray pixels. For static images, PNG is better in every way: more colors, scalable transparency (say, 10% transparent, .gif only supports 0% and 100%), but there is a problem that some versions of Internet Explorer don't do PNG transparency correctly, so you get flat non-transparent background that looks ugly. If you don't care about those IE users, go for PNG.
BTW, if you want animations, go for GIF.
PNG is a 100% replacement for GIF files and is supported by all web browsers you are likely to encounter.
There are very, very few situations where GIF would be preferable. The most important one is animation--the GIF89a standard supports animation, and virtually every browser supports it, but the plain old PNG format does not--you would need to use MNG for that, which has limited browser support.
Virtually all browsers support single-bit transparency in PNG files (the type of transparency offered by the GIF format). There is a lack of support in IE6 for PNG's full 8-bit transparency, but that can be rectified for most situations by a little CSS magic.
If your PNG files are coming out larger than equivalent GIF files, it is almost certainly because your source image has more than 256 colors. GIF files are indexed to a maximum palette of 256 colors, while PNG files in most graphics programs are saved by default in a 24-bit lossless format. If file size is more important than accurate colors, save the file as an 8-bit indexed PNG and it should be equivalent to GIF or better.
It is possible to "hack" a GIF file to have more than 256 colors using a combination of animation frames with do-not-replace flags and multiple palettes, but this approach has been virtually forgotten about since the advent of PNG.
A major problem with GIFs are that it is a patent-encumbered format (EDIT: This is apparently no longer true). If you don't care about that, feel free to use GIFs. PNGs have a lot more flexibility over GIFs, particularly in the area of colorspace, but that flexibility often means you'll want to "optimize" the PNGs before publishing them. A web search should uncover tools for your platform for this.
Of course, if you want animation, GIF is the only way to go, since MNG was basically a non-starter for some reason.
"It may just be the tools I'm using, but GIF files usually seem to be a bit smaller than a comparible PNG, but using them just seems so 1987."
It probably is your tools. From the PNG FAQ:
"There are two main reasons behind this phenomenon: comparing apples and oranges (that is, not comparing the same image types), and using bad tools." continued...
But you could always try saving as both (using the same colour depth) and see which comes out smaller.
Of course, if you want to standardise on one graphic format for your site, PNG is likely to be the best one to use.
Personally I use gif's quite a bit for my images, as they work everywhere, obviously your transparency limitation is one key element that would direct someone towards a specific format.
I don't see any downfalls to using gif's.
If they get smaller and you have nothing to gain from using the features PNG offers (which is alpha channel transparency and more than 256 colors) then I see no reason why you should use PNG.
gif files will tend to be a little smaller since they don't support a transparency alpha channel (and maybe for some other reasons). Personally, I don't feel the size difference is really worth worrying about nearly as much as it used to. Most people are using the web with some sort of broadband now, so I doubt they will notice a difference.
It's probably more important to use the type of images that your manipulation tools work best with.
Plus, I like the ability to put an image on any background and have a drop shadow work, which points me more towards the png format.
I usually use gif's because of the size, but there is also png-8 which is 256 colours as well.
If you need fancy semi-transparent stuff then use png-24.
I usually use the 'save for web' feature in photoshop, which lets you fiddle with filetype, number of colours etc and see the result before you save. Of course I would use the smallest possible which still looks good in my eyes.
I use jpg for all non-transparent images. You can control the compression, which I like. I found this web site that compares the two. jpg is smaller and looks better.