OK guys...I surrender. Nothing over 2000 pixels with IE 5.0. I had asked
because our company developed an in-house on-line proofing system which
displays jpegs of catalog pages and newspaper ads that are typically 2700 -
3800 pixels wide. And you have a point, why would most typical users want to
display an image that is wider than a browser's window. In our case the
users scroll to the place on the ad they need to view and annotate. Plus
Macs have a very nice scrolling feature when you hold down the control
button and drag the mouse - you don't even need to use the scroll bars.
Our on-line proofing system was coded to use IE 5.5 for the PC, IE 5.0 for
the Mac. The PC version displays the images, and as we found out, the Mac
does not. I thought there might be hope just because other browsers (IE 4.5,
Opera, Netscape) are able to display the wide images. We were kind of hoping
that capability would be restored in a new version of IE for the Mac (if
there is one coming for OS 9).
In order to display images wider than 2000 pixels in IE 5, we are going to
slice the wide images in two and display them side by side in an HTML table.
We didn't want to have to double the number of images we have to manage, but
it looks as though unless we recode for another browser that will be the
case for now
Thanks to all for the advice and time on this topic.
Kenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Pettit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mac Internet Explorer Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Scott
Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 1:08 PM
Subject: RE: wide JPEGs revisited
Scott said:
> Also, will it be able to display JPEGS over 2000 pixels wide?
Hank said:
> According to what I've read here, it's a Mac OS 8/9 limitation, not
IE.
Brad says:
That's not totally true. To be fair to MacOS, the limitation in
QuickDraw is that
the width of a single Quickdraw PixMap in bytes needs to fit in a
certain number of bits.
Because MacIE stores each frame of an image in a single PixMap, and
because JPEG images
are usually 4-bytes per pixel, they are more restricted in their width
than, say, 8-bit GIFs. If MacIE's image
handling were designed with viewing very large images in mind, perhaps
we would have allowed
for "tiling" very large images to get around this, but it didn't seem
worth the added complexity and code.
Then there's a practical issue. At 4-bytes per pixel, even a lowly 2000
pixel wide image takes
8,000 Bytes of -contiguous- storage for each row. A 2000x2000 JPEG
requires a single block
of 16 Million contiguous bytes. That's -in addition- to the memory
required to decompress it and to load
whatever else is on the page.
Because most web pages are designed to fit to the width of a window, and
because one is hard-pressed
even today to find monitors that handle 2000+pixel-wide windows in full
color mode, it seemed like a
reasonable compromise to optimize IE for browsing web pages rather than
wide images. We decided
to crop the image and show the leftmost 2000-pixels rather than fail to
load it altogether because it
was too big.
If any program would handle really wide JPEGs, I'd think JPEGViewer
could, being that it is designed
primarily as an image viewer.
--bp
-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Grewal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:57 AM
To: Mac Internet Explorer Talk
Subject: RE:
We have no plans to support opening JPEGS that are that large under OS
8/9...ever. I believe the size limit in the Carbon version of IE is
double that of the non-Carbon version, but I doubt we'll ever change
that either.
For this case, we suggest people save the image to their drive and view
it with Picture Viewer, Preview, or whatever image viewing application
they have available to them.
-Jimmy
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Zink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:34 AM
To: Mac Internet Explorer Talk
Subject: Re:
on 7/27/01 8:53 AM, Scott Stevenson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> According to what I've read here, it's a Mac OS 8/9 limitation, not
IE.
Therefore, nothing under OS 8/9 can open a JPEG wider than 2000 pixels?
Is
that right?
Harry
---
http://www.zinkdifferent.com
To unsubscribe send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/macie-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
To unsubscribe send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/macie-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
To unsubscribe send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/macie-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
To unsubscribe send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/macie-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
