On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, John Duffell wrote:
John-Mark Bell <jmb202(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, John Duffell wrote:
The Select image renderer seems quite good though, if I set it to quality 3
with the built in viewer the quality is as good as oregano, at quality 2 it's
as bad as netsurf.
Hmm, that's interesting. I'm not sure any of the NetSurf developers
actually have access to the Select documentation so it's a case of trying
to poke ifclib appropriately and hoping the output is remotely correct ;)
It would be nice for it to use the built in ImageFileConvert for most
but I would see the logic behind using optimised renderers for gif/jpeg and
perhaps png. These could use some clever rendering algorithm to only render
parts of the images visible but cache them to allow smooth scrolling of the
page. Of course increasing your font cache also helps ;)
I forgot to say that NetSurf already uses IFC for pngs (and jpegs as,
iirc, the old jpeg interface is just a veneer to IFC now). Obviously,
this isn't much use for those of us without Select (or any likelihood of
it becoming available for our machines (totally different rant, I'll shut
up about that now ;)).
> The png renderer is incomplete.
> So it isn't really a surprise that image quality is poor. Does this happen
> for gifs as well?
GIFs look ok, although there's a bit of thinking time before it appears.
There is reportedly an issue with some gifs which causes the renderer to
take a long time to render the image, I haven't actually seen this myself
so I can't really say what causes it.
I presume one of the things going to be added would be rendinging
Probably, I'm not 100% sure when the images actually get rendered. They
certainly don't get drawn until all page objects have been downloaded
(so the rendering speed does depend on your connection speed, obviously
the text content of the page gets displayed as soon as possible).