On 1/26/2017 9:11 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>
>> I tried to recreate your problem. However, a very sharp JPEG file
>> that is 1852x1852 px is only 750 KB on my PC.
>
> Image file size depends both on the number of pixels and on the color
> depth. 1852×1852×2/8=857,476
David E. Ross wrote:
I tried to recreate your problem. However, a very sharp JPEG file
that is 1852x1852 px is only 750 KB on my PC.
Image file size depends both on the number of pixels and on the color
depth. 1852×1852×2/8=857,476 bytes = 837.38 kB (black and white) is much
less than 1852×
On 1/26/2017 4:51 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
>
> When I use in html border="0"/>
>
> The rendering by SM is superb
>
> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852
Richard Alan wrote:
> Ray_Net wrote:
>
>> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
>> When I use in html > border="0"/> The rendering by SM is superb
>
> Stands to reason...
>
>> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
>> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded
Well, of course. You've reduced the quality by orders of magnitude.
I think that what the OP is saying is that SM does a much better job of
resizing the image than IrfanView, and he wants to know how (or what
software to use) to get a better quality smaller image.
Peter
Richard Alan wrote:
Ray_Net wrote:
I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels When I use in html
The rendering by SM is superb
Stands to reason...
BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
1852x1852
Ray_Net wrote:
> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
> When I use in html border="0"/> The rendering by SM is superb
Stands to reason...
> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852x1852
> wh
I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
When I use in html border="0"/>
The rendering by SM is superb
BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852x1852
which is 2.042 KB
To avoid this, I use Irf
Ray_Net composed on 2017-01-27 01:07 (UTC+0100):
Sometimes I used email to show an existing web page and the expected web
page it should be with my modifications - in that case HTML mail is
essential !
That's hardly a "most users" use case, or even essential. When I want to do
that, I email o
Richard Owlett wrote on 26-01-17 11:28:
On 01/25/2017 03:22 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote on 25-01-17 15:21:
I've just changed laptops. The CRITICAL difference is the
change FROM a 4:3 aspect ratio TO 16:9.
I can properly display web sites if I *set ZOOM to 130%.
I can find settings f
Felix Miata wrote on 25-01-17 22:49:
Ray_Net composed on 2017-01-25 22:26 (UTC+0100):
Felix Miata wrote:
Ray_Net composed on 2017-01-25 22:00 (UTC+0100):
Why your newspaper is not in plain-text ?
What's a newspaper?
Use the first link found -> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Newspaper wikipedi
On 01/26/2017 01:39 PM, Larry S. wrote:
me wrote:
Larry S. wrote:
me wrote:
WaltS48 wrote:
Once more with complete instructions.
Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.
Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.
Enable the other options in that section as you
me wrote:
Larry S. wrote:
me wrote:
WaltS48 wrote:
Once more with complete instructions.
Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.
Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.
Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:
"Zoom
On 01/25/2017 10:25 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 01/25/2017 08:44 AM, me wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I've just changed laptops. The CRITICAL difference is the change
FROM a 4:3 aspect ratio TO 16:9.
I can properly display web sites if I *set ZOOM to 130%.
I can find settings for min and max zo
On 1/26/17 10:26 AM, me wrote:
WaltS48 wrote:
Once more with complete instructions.
Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.
Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.
Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:
"Zoom only te
Larry S. wrote:
> me wrote:
>> WaltS48 wrote:
>>> Once more with complete instructions.
>>> Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.
>>>
>>> Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.
>>>
>>> Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:
>>>
me wrote:
WaltS48 wrote:
Once more with complete instructions.
Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.
Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.
Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:
"Zoom only text instead of full pa
WaltS48 wrote:
> Once more with complete instructions.
> Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.
>
> Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.
>
> Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:
>
> "Zoom only text instead of full page
On 2017-01-26 03:12, Ant wrote:
As you guys know, both Gecko based web browsers are the (lat/new)est
stable versions which I told them. "Can't they be made to also support
modern protocols?" is what they asked. So, I am asking you guys on how
to resolve/fix this security connection issue.
There
On 01/26/2017 05:28 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 01/25/2017 03:22 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote on 25-01-17 15:21:
I've just changed laptops. The CRITICAL difference is the
change FROM a 4:3 aspect ratio TO 16:9.
I can properly display web sites if I *set ZOOM to 130%.
I can find sett
On 01/25/2017 03:22 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote on 25-01-17 15:21:
I've just changed laptops. The CRITICAL difference is the
change FROM a 4:3 aspect ratio TO 16:9.
I can properly display web sites if I *set ZOOM to 130%.
I can find settings for min and max zoom in about:config.
I w
I can access the website via https in SeaMonkey 2.48 and 2.49. So it
should sort itself out. FF 51 is 2.48 so I wonder why it does show an
error? You sure you have tLS 1.1+ enabled?
FRG
Ant wrote:
Hi!
Recently, http://videosift.com added its secured connections but
Mozilla's Gecko based we
I was just told that the administrator fixed it after he investigated
and tried different things. It now works. I hope it stays that way. :)
On 1/26/2017 12:12 AM, Ant wrote:
Hi!
Recently, http://videosift.com added its secured connections but
Mozilla's Gecko based web browsers (e.g., Firefox
Hi!
Recently, http://videosift.com added its secured connections but
Mozilla's Gecko based web browsers (e.g., Firefox v51 and SeaMonkey
v2.46) show errors like this in SeaMonkey web browser:
"Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to videosift.com.
Cannot communicat
24 matches
Mail list logo
