I am going through my image files and replacing them with svg, from png. The problem is that now, when I scale up or zoom in on mobile for example, the images look worse than they did with png.
As I understand, SVG is scalable vector graphics, so you should be able to scale them as big as you like without distortion.
Well, the images have been converted from png to svg so should, in theory, look better, mostly when scaled up.
You can see an example here of png background image at https://adsler.co.uk/jobs and svg here https://adsler.co.uk/dating/
You will see that in jobs (png) the image scales quite high before distortion but in dating (svg) it zooms only a bit before it distorts, whereas it should be the other way around.
So what am I doing wrong and how to fix please? Basically I just want crystal clear images across my site.
On further further inspection, in Chrome this is most definitely the case, but in Firefox, on mobile, it scales quite high before distortion.
Two points then come up.
Why is it distorting at all? It should be infinitely scalable.
When I zoom in on an svg in Firefox, does any distortion occur simply because my mobile phone reaches the peak of its display capacity?
The problem you're running into is that while this image is technically an SVG, the fact that it started as a PNG and was converted has left it as a png image wrapper in an svg, rather than a true vector.
If you open it up in a text editor you can see that the whole content inside the <svg> wrapper is an image attribute <image id="image0" width="2160" height="3840" x="0" y="0" xlink:href="... etc.
What this means is that it will essentially behave in the same way as a raster image rather than a vector graphic.
I'd advise trying to recreate the graphic as a vector using something like Illustrator, Sketch or Inkscape. Do you have the image saved in anything other than a png format?
Related
I have created 20 webpages full of charts for a client. They want to print them as part of a publication so I am needing to turn SVG into EPS.
I've imported a large d3-generated SVG into Illustrator. The CSS is inline so most of the formatting has come through (thanks to this answer: Can I turn SVG and external CSS into EPS?). However there are two problems. One is that three out of four x-axes are replaced by a thick black line. The other is that some of the data (three lines on the bottom right chart) are completely missing. Does anyone have any clues as to what is wrong?
I have looked through the CSS in the hope of finding something that favours one particular axis or tick but can't see anything. I can't share the SVG or page because it's driven by client data, which is confidential.
Grateful for any help
Emma
Original SVG:
New Illustrator EPS:
In case anyone else has the same problem, I thought I'd post how I worked this out. The problem was CSS-related. Illustrator renders CSS differently, and applies slightly different rules to my text editor. In particular:
class names containing underscores are ignored;
font-size using vw are ignored;
where two opposing CSS rules apply, it seems the first rule is taken (haven't tested this properly)
CDATA declarations have to be within the svg tags
Sometimes the path to the element has to be spelled out far more clearly than a browser would require
A bit late to the party but I noticed such artifacts as well with Illustrator. If you open the SVG in any other browser it works fine. My solution was to use InkScape and then re-save the SVG files. After this Illustrator handles the SVG well.
This isn't exactly an answer to your question, but if you're only looking for an image that's of a high enough resolution to print, and don't necessarily care about it being vector vs. raster graphics, you can always use a high-resolution screen (if you have a 4K/5K screen laying around, use that, but an iPad may do the trick too), zoom in so that each SVG chart takes up as much of the screen as possible, then take a screenshot. If you're doing an extremely large high-quality print of just the chart, it may not work, but as long as it's a smaller piece of a larger document, you'll likely get a large enough image that it being raster graphics won't affect the quality of the printing.
This approach certainly has its disadvantages, but it's relatively quick, simple, and gets the job done.
EDIT: It looks like printing to a PDF will also preserve SVG graphics, and (at least on my computer) there doesn't appear to be any differences between the two images. Once it's in PDF, you'll be able to import into Illustrator pretty easily, and extract the actual SVG graphics from there.
I am making a responsive web page using the Bootstrap 3 framework. I have an image that I want to use as a logo on the page.
I started off saving the full size (788 x 1098) image as a PNG. My custom CSS makes sure the image has a max-width of 280px and of course Bootstrap's CSS will scale down the image appropriately for the device. When I viewed my responsive web page on my desktop PC it looked ok even though it had been scaled down to 197 x 280. However when I viewed it on my mobile the image looked blurry and wasn't good at all.
So then I heard about SVG images and thought I'd give it a go. I downloaded Inkscape for Mac, opened the full size PNG in Inkscape and re-saved as a SVG image. Unexpectedly the SVG image looks good when I view my web page on my mobile phone but looks blurry and bad when viewed on my desktop PC.
Why is this? I thought the whole point of SVG images was that they can be scaled without loss or blurriness?
I've made a CodePen to help demonstrate: http://codepen.io/theclarkofben/pen/WvdKgM
<p>SVG 20%</p>
<img src="http://www.clarkben.com/img/cv.svg" alt="a" style="height: 20%; width: 20%;"/>
<p>SVG 100%</p>
<img src="http://www.clarkben.com/img/cv.svg" alt="a" />
Your "SVG" is just SVG containing single raster (PNG) image, so nothing really scalable; see <image … in view-source:http://www.clarkben.com/img/cv.svg.
You can control rendering of such raster a bit with CSS (either using image-rendering or forcing GPU to handle that via some transform, but result woudn't be perfect either. Anyway, even it this was vector image, rendering A4 into cca 300 screen pixels wide box would not be "readable" as well, in my oppinion.
It looks like the image is still just a PNG image; it's just masquerading as an SVG because you gave it that extension without actually converting it to SVG. You can't really convert a PNG to an SVG by just opening it in inkscape and saving the image as SVG -- you need to either recreate the image from scratch as an SVG or look up how to turn a raster image into an svg image.
I have an 40px by 20px image with 72 Pixels / Inch.
I would like to create a Retina display version.
What should I do? Double the size? Change the resolution?
And in which format should I save it? PNG? JPG? ...
I am using this image on a web site ...
In your image editor, double the size of your image to 80px by 40px.
In your markup set the width to 40 and height to 20.
<img src="example.png" width="40" height="20" />
You should save as png if you need transparency or the image is line art. Save photographs as jpg.
My answer is convert your image into SVG
Do you have Illustrator? If so save your image as SVG (and have a png as a fallback if you want).
<img src="images/logo.svg" alt="" />
<img src="images/logo.png" alt="" />
As long as you use Modernzr which can work to get svg friendly in most browsers.
You can see it here how it's done:
http://toddmotto.com/mastering-svg-use-for-a-retina-web-fallbacks-with-png-script/
Hope it helps :)
A retina display image (or high-density display image) is double the pixel size of a standard image - its scaling factor is 2.0. This means that yes, for your 40x20 pixel image, you will need to make an 80x40 pixel version (that is then displayed at double pixel density on screen). The format doesn't matter as much, both PNG and JPG will work fine (PNG will not degrade in quality with compression, but the file size will be larger than JPG).
However, the problem with high-density display images is that they take up more bandwidth, and are unnecessary for devices that don't have the high resolution or Retina displays. This means more data transferred over the network, inconveniencing mobile users and those with limited data transfer caps.
One solution is to use something like Retina.js. It's an open-source javascript client script that will automatically load the retina-sized image from your server and swap it in-place for the low-density version, if it exists. It follows Apple's standard for naming high-resolution images - #2x, so you can have HTML code like this:
<img src="/images/my_image.jpg" />
and the script will search your server also for /images/my_image#2x.jpg. If it exists, it will load it and swap it in-place without having to worry about messing with CSS.
Generally as of this writing there are two types of retina displays, hence you should create an image for each type.
For a 2× device, you would need to produce twice the logical pixels' width and height with a resolution of 144 pixels per inch (72 ppi ✕ 2).
For a 3× device, you would need three times the logical pixels with a resolution of 216 pixels per inch (72 ppi ✕ 3).
Examples of 2× devices are the MacBook Pro (released in 2012-2019) and most iPhone since the iPhone 4. Examples of 3×
devices are the iPhone 6 Plus, and the iPhone X. However the iPhone Xr is a 2× device.
Hence for your case you would need images in 80 px ✕ 40 px and 120 px ✕ 60 px for 2× and 3× devices respectively.
Retina displays are not dependent on the specific bitmap image format. You can use the original image format. For websites, you should use JPG for photographs and PNG for line-art graphics saved as bitmaps.
You should not just blindly enlarge images otherwise this would create a blurred results – it would no better than if you don't include any high-resolution versions in the first place. Either obtain the original higher-resolution version of the images (typically from vector graphic source) and downscale them or use a machine-learning based image enhancement solution such as Bigger Picture to "convert" your image into a higher resolution.
Photoshop gives you a couple options for resizing an image. For instance if the image is iPhone size you can increase the image size by 200%. Photoshop gives you a couple options for resampling of the image. Bicubic, bilinear and etc. This will remake the image at a higher resolution and interpolate the missing pixels. Hope this helps.
This is a really interesting article showing a nice option for dealing with high res images:
http://blog.netvlies.nl/design-interactie/retina-revolution/
Basically, it's saying that, if you make the image quite large (width and height) but then save it at quite low quality, it still comes out very sharp on retina displays. It means that you can use the one same image on all devices, and that the file size is very low, too, which is an extra bonus. You can set the width and height of the image in your CSS and/or HTML to set it to the visual dimensions you desire.
This article blew me away, and is my go-to approach for dealing with both retina-friendly and bandwidth-friendly images. Win, win.
You can use CSS opacity option.
This will give you an transparent look of your image based upon the value you set to opacity.
Try learning opacity: http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_image_transparency.asp
I have an image that I use many times. In several cases I want to shrink its size, but obviously it loses sharpness when I do this in HTML.
Is there a way to fix this? The image is located elsewhere and I can’t save it locally.
Thanks
As dheerosaur states, SVG graphics can be used when you need to have the same image in multiple sizes but don't want to compromise quality.
Another thing to do is use an online service, such as Resize.co. You pass them the URL for your image file, the attributes and they take care of everything else.
You cannot control the way the browser renders images when they are resized. Images will look better when being passed through Photoshop's filters (or those in another tool) upon resize.
There is three way that I know to reduce an image file size in bytes :
Convert the file into a format using lossy compression algorithm such as JPG. Obviously the image will lose sharpness
Convert the file into a format using lossless compression algorithm, like PNG. Only works if the image contains lots of region with flat colors
Resize/resample the image using Photoshop or GIMP. If the new image dimension (width x height) is exactly the same as the displayed image's dimension in HTML, then web users will still see a sharp image
Firefox and Internet Explorer actually do have CSS properties that adjust the way images are rendered when resized via HTML attributes or CSS properties:
Firefox: image-rendering
Internet Explorer: -ms-interpolation-mode
These won’t work in other browsers, and may not work great in all (or any) versions of IE and Firefox.
But it might be worth experimenting with them as a fallback in case resizer.co causes any issues.
Does anybody know of a good way to replicate Photoshop's multiply layer mode using either an image or CSS?
I'm working on a project that has thumbnails that get a color overlay when you hover over them, but the designer used a layer set to multiply and I can't figure out how to produce it on the web.
The best thing I've come up with is either using rgba or a transparent png, but even then it doesn't look right.
There are new CSS properties being introduced to do just this thing, they are blend-mode and background-blend-mode.
Currently, you won't be able to use them in any sort of production environment, as they are very very new, and currently only supported by Chrome Canary (experimental web browser) & Webkit Nightly.
These properties are set up to work nearly exactly the same as photoshop's blending modes, and allow for various different modes to be set as values for these properties such as overlay, screen, lighten, color-dodge, and of course multiply.. among others.
blend-mode would allow images (and possibly content? I haven't heard anything to suggest that at this point though.) layered on top of each other to have this blending effect applied.
background-blend-mode would be quite similar, but would be intended for background images (set using background or background-image) rather than actual image elements.
EDIT:
The next section is becoming a bit irrelevant as browser support is growing.. Check this chart to see which browsers have support for this: http://caniuse.com/#feat=css-backgroundblendmode
If you've got the latest version of Chrome installed on your computer, you can actually see these styles in use by enabling some flags in your browser (just throw these into your address bar:)
chrome://flags/#enable-experimental-web-platform-features
chrome://flags/#enable-css-shaders
* note that the flags required for this might change at any time
Enable those bad boys and then check out this fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/cqzJ5/
(If the styles are properly enabled in your browser, the two images should be blended to make the scene look like it is underwater)
While this may not be the most legitimate answer at the current moment due to the almost entirely nonexistent support for this feature, we can hope that modern browsers will adopt these properties in the near future, giving us a really nice and easy solution to this problem.
Some extra reading resources on blending modes and the css properties:
http://blogs.adobe.com/webplatform/2013/06/24/css-background-blend-modes-are-now-available-in-chrome-canary-and-webkit-nightly/
http://demosthenes.info/blog/707/PhotoShop-In-The-Browser-Understanding-CSS-Blend-Modes
http://html.adobe.com/webplatform/graphics/blendmodes/
Simple with a bit of SVG:
<svg width="200" height="200" viewBox="10 10 280 280">
<filter id="multiply">
<feBlend mode="multiply"/>
</filter>
<image id="kitten" x="0" y="0" width="300" height="300" xlink:href="http://placekitten.com/300" />
</svg>
and some CSS:
#kitten:hover {
filter:url(#multiply);
}
The fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/7uCQQ/381/
Just for the record, this guy is developing a library to do so. I just came into it while doing a research, haven't tried yet.
https://github.com/Phrogz/context-blender
It is possible with a 24.png - if you know the trick.
In illustrator you can export the graphic as a 24.png, but this never seems to work like multiply.
I've found away.
get your multiplied graphic on its own
place a solid black 100% box behind it, and select both graphics
in the transparency window select 'Make Mask' and then 'Invert Mask'
export as a 24.png file
works just like a multiply when z-index(ed) on top of a picture.
No such ability is available. The only compositing options you get that are even close are:
lighter compositing mode on an HTML5 <canvas> (which is a+b not a*b, and has about the opposite effect to multiply)
min or subtract Compositor filters in IE only.
Neither are really practical.
In general you should not attempt to export Photoshop comps as layers, but render them down to a single opaque image. For rollovers you can make two images (one for normal state, one for hovered) and swap between them using the CSS :hover style to choose a different background image, or—better, as it requires no preloading and reduces HTTP requests—combine both images into one and use background-image/background-position to display the right part of that image in each state as a background image. (“CSS sprites”)
I recently had the need to do exactly what the OP asked so I searched around. I found a great way to replicate the multiply effect by making a transparent PNG in Photoshop.
Create a new document with the same dimensions of your multiply
layer.
Fill the document with black.
Add a vector mask (the icon to the left of layer "fx" at the bottom of the layers window).
Alt/Option + click on the mask itself.
Now copy and paste your multiply layer into the mask.
Cmd/Ctrl + i to invert the layer you just pasted.
Create a new layer below this layer and add the image behind the multiply overlay.
Everything should look pretty close to your desired result. If needed, you can adjust the opacity of the masked layer we created.
When it looks good just toggle the bottom layer's visibility and save the masked layer as a PNG et voila!
All credit goes to Sojeong from https://superuser.com/questions/381704/multiply-blending-mode-to-png
Check this out:
http://www.webdesign.org/photoshop/photoshop-basics/remove-white-using-channels.10545.html
Using those instructions, I had great success watermarking a black-and-white image (ink drawing in my case, with blacks and greys on a solid white background) onto a dark background (wood in my case). There is hardly any difference with the real Multiply filter of Adobe.
I used the Photoshop instructions to remove the whites from my image, leaving only blacks and greys on a transparent background. Saving this to PNG and putting it on the wood in CSS/HTML still lookedmuch worse thanmultiply, but strongly reducing the brightness of the PNG solved it (the light greys stood out before, making it ugly).
In general I recommend you play around in photoshop, replicating the web situation: a semi-transparent (no special stuff) layer on top of a solid background. Tutorials such as the above may allow you to reproduce multiply or other fancy effects.
Not sure if you will have any luck. As far as I know, it isn't possible even if you tried to integrate some advanced JavaScript with it.