my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Post your random links here (Page 55)

This topic comprises 59 pages: 1  2  3  ...  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59

Author Topic: Post your random links here Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-07-2011 12:15 AM                     JPEG and GIF aren't so great at rendering type and those formats are totally inappropriate for displaying blocks of body copy. A vector-based format like SVG would be better. Unfortunately there is no properly supported HTML standard for embedding fonts. So even if SVG was used the type would have to be converted to outlines and no longer work as text objects. Again, all of the text in a PDF is searchable by search engines. And the text in that PDF can be set in any variety of typefaces never ever to be found on the end user's computer. I find things all the time with web searches that are embedded in PDFs. I find a lot of legitimate corporate logos by using .PDF and .INDD in the search field. I see zero problem with loading a PDF in a browser window. It downloads and displays the same way as a web page does but has far more graphics capability than any flavor of HTML. Countless numbers of magazines and newspapers are designed using Adobe InDesign. Many other advertising pieces from corporate annual reports to simple brochures are designed using the same thing. Output a PDF of that layout and all of the look of it will be retained. HTML cannot accomplish that. If HTML could do everything a real page layout program could accomplish (and do so as quickly and accurately) every magazine and newspaper would be laid out in HTML.  |  IP: Logged Damien Taylor Master Film Handler Posts: 493 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2007 posted 08-07-2011 12:19 AM                     quote: Brad Miller MORE than flash??? I think not. Yeah, true. Flash had good intentions. But as we all know, it has been abused.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-07-2011 12:38 AM                     Flash has been abused to some extent, particular by some web sites promoting certain movies. But the continued prevalence of Flash is a demonstration in how the W3C has failed miserably at ratifying the various technologies underpinning "HTML 5." You will be taking your chances if you want to lay out web pages using any of those features. Most web users will not see those elements render properly. Not all web browsers support .PNG, much less the flavor of .PNG that includes alpha channel transparency masks. I've been bitching about the lack of .SVG support for years. Version 3 of Cascading Style Sheets has a great deal of promise. But none of the existing web browsers fully support it. And most web users are still using older versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer. And we all know how stupid Microsoft can be about allowing a good idea to be implemented without them trying in many ways to screw it up. Nevertheless, I get it why some people are annoyed by Flash content on web pages. But I'm never going to go along with attacks on PDF. As long as HTML remains as stupidly old world backward as it is, PDF is always going to be extremely better at displaying page layouts.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 08-07-2011 01:18 AM                        quote: Bobby Henderson I see zero problem with loading a PDF in a browser window. It downloads and displays the same way as a web page does Not really. Usually they download to my hard drive automatically. The few I have had open in a browser window operate slow and clunky. Again, form over function. Screw that. My choices on what to eat are not going to depend on what font the menu is written in.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-07-2011 11:59 AM                     You must have something set up strange with the Acrobat plug-in for the browser you use. By default, Acrobat plug-ins should display PDFs within the browser window for Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and IE. Saving to the hard disc is typically an option, and sometimes a hidden option at that with Google Chrome. Use of type is very important in all forms of advertising. A restaurant isn't going to be helping itself if its ad materials, such as the menu, has all the personality of a Microsoft Excel spread sheet. Arial, Verdana and Times New Roman are pretty crappy, unremarkable choices. In outdoor advertising, if I see a sign or billboard with all the type set in Arial Bold (and often distorted to fit certain spaces) I am going to judge whoever designed it to be an amateur hack that ought to be doing something else for a living than crapping on the outdoor visual landscape.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-07-2011 12:06 PM                        I have to agree with Bobby on this one. Restaurant menus these days are designed to be "part of the experience," not just tell you what you're going to eat. The typical "mom and pop" restaurant just has a typed-list menu with the prices listed, where your chain restaurants and expensive places will have specially themed menus that project the atmosphere of the place. To rely on all the myriad web browsers to render their expensively-designed menu properly would send shivers down the spines of the owners, I'd think.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 08-07-2011 05:58 PM                        So basically what your saying is that the web sucks and is basically useless without Flash and PDFs? I still don't know why embedded images in the page can't be used. JPEG works just fine for that purpose, but if you really want to go all out you can use PNG. GIFs are 100% useless unless they are animated.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-07-2011 09:07 PM                     I'm not even arguing about Flash, the reasons for its continued use (support for HTML 5 sucks) has already been covered repeatedly. HTML does indeed suck as a page layout tool when compared to the creative design capabilities of real page layout applications like Adobe InDesign and Quark Xpress. HTML is geared mainly for just getting the information out there. It's not very good at presenting the information in a visually compelling manner. It's really not good at being printed on paper. Lots of people will print a restaurant menu. PDF is better at handling that. Most restaurants are going to spend at least some money to make good looking menus in print. They have the same designs saved in PDF format and shown on the web with the entire design structure intact. Why do they need to spend even more money getting someone to code together a 100% HTML version that doesn't look nearly as good? JPEG is good at displaying photos on the web. It's not so good at displaying type. It can be used for showing rasterized text in a web page button, but with the text being pixels it won't show up in a search engine. Same goes for a JPEG image showing paragraphs of text. The worst thing about JPEG and type is those visual errors from lossy image compression will show up far more easily on graphics objects like type than they will a photograph. You could save the image at maximum quality settings. But then it's going to seriously balloon the file size of the page. I would much rather load a PDF with a lot of body copy in it than rasterized JPEG images of it. The PDF file size is going to be smaller. GIF is actually better than JPEG at diplaying flatly colored graphics objects like type and logos. It does more to preserve edge detail and keep it crisp. GIF can use lossless compression. Selecting an adaptive palette (rather than the obsolete web safe palette) can hide the dithering better. Still, GIF is a compromise. Vector-based graphics is superior at showing type, logos and a lot of other graphics objects. PNG can combine the strengths of JPEG and GIF together, along with adding things like alpha channel support. But the file sizes can get pretty big. Unfortunately not all web browsers properly support PNG images, just like the problem with SVG.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 08-07-2011 10:23 PM                        PNG is supported by all browsers except IE. IE will display the PNG files fine, it just won't recognize the alpha channel. That's it! This was three years ago, so perhaps IE handles PNG properly now. PNG was designed as a replacement for GIF. GIF has only one level of transparency, there or not there. That can make for some really rough edges if you're not careful. GIF is great for animations, though, and myself along with several other people have done many different animated GIFs reflecting many different games over at www.sega-16.com/forum (upper left corner of the page... refreshing the page brings up a different animated banner).  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-08-2011 10:40 AM                     The problem is Internet Explorer is still the most widely used web browser. Even worse, many web surfers are still using older versions of it, like IE 6. Versions 7 and 8 still have numerous technical problems with PNG images. Internet Explorer 9 is the first version of IE not to have any technical problems with PNG. Unfortunately users of Windows XP can't upgrade to it since it only runs on Windows 7 and updated versions of Vista. If you can't use the really cool alpha channel effects with PNG there's not much advantage of using it. JPEG is more file size efficient at showing off photographs. GIF is more efficient at showing flat colored graphics. The use of an adaptive palette will hide rough edges better. No need for the web safe palette anymore. Internet Explorer is arguably the biggest thing holding up adoption of HTML5. The HTML5 Test Web Site gives the web browser you're using a score on how compliant it is with HTML5 and lists all of the items it does or does not support. The top score is 450 for perfect HTML5 compliance. No web browser currently available achieves a perfect score (note: some of the scoring items will relate to a user's computer hardware). Here's how the browsers I use on two different computers rate: Google Chrome (on Win 7): 329 points + 13 bonus points. Google Chrome (on WinXP): 315 points + 13 bonus points. Firefox 5 (on Win7): 272 points + 9 bonus points. IE 9 (on Win 7): 141 points + 5 bonus points. IE 8 (on WinXP): 41 points, no bonus points.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 08-08-2011 07:24 PM                        Looks like Firefox for the Mac is a bit better as it scored 286 and 9 bonus points. Cool site, thanks for the link! Google Chrome on Mac 10.6.7 also scores 330 with 13 bonus points. Sounds like Mac browsera are ever-so-slightly better. IE is just sad. It has no right to exist. But do you feel all websites should be IE compliant? If people have no reason to stop using IE, they never will. Make it so web sites look broken in IE. People will wonder what's wrong and others will tell them to get out of 1995 and upgrade their shit or STFU.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-08-2011 09:43 PM                     I seriously would love to give Internet Explorer the finger and tell users who insist on using it to get testing done to make sure they're not suffering from some form of mental illness. I agree it really has no right to exist, especially for the security liability it poses to the operating system. The situation with HTML5 and current web browsers reminds me of that former defense secretary's quote, "you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." The same thing applies with the Internet and other ways how people still use computers. Too many people still use Internet Explorer on Windows XP-based PCs. That makes it difficult to use HTML5 on a business web site where browser compatibility is very important. It forces you to just keep using ancient standards instead of moving forward. In that regard, but a little off current topic, I think Apple is making the same mistake with its increased hatred of optical disc drives. Apple hated Blu-ray and now they hate DVD. The problem is most people still burn files to discs. Just today a lady I know gave me a billboard design she made on her new 27" iMac for the university where she works. It's a bit much to upload a 300MB Photoshop file "to the cloud" but I told her she could copy the file to a USB thumb drive and bring it in via the "sneaker network." She burned it to a CD-R. It's fine for a computer system to be forward looking, but it still must work with stuff from the past too. If most people used a web browser as HTML5 compliant as Google Chrome I could probably feel comfortable enough using many of the HTML5 bells and whistles in a web page design. The tough thing is prying many users away from old Windows XP boxes and old versions of Internet Explorer. I think the folks from Google, Mozilla, Apple and Opera ought to work together to hash out some of the stupid difficulties that remain in HTML5. For example, Google just needs to get over itself and allow native MPEG-4 AVC support in Chrome with the video tag. Other issues like this could be hashed out quickly. Then they could pose a united front and show how much better their browsers are with full HTML5 compliance while Internet Explorer continues to suck. It would force Microsoft to respond and improve IE past 1990s quality.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-13-2011 12:30 PM                     Hey let's liven up this party with KITTENS!!! Here is an interactive website where you can play with kittens up for adoption. (Requires a free download of Silverlight, of which Joe and Bobby may not approve of.)  |  IP: Logged Sean Weitzel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 619 From: Vacaville, CA (1790 miles west of Rockwall) Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-13-2011 01:22 PM                     I love kittens and cats. I also love antique televisions http://www.earlytelevision.org/index.html  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Froes Film Handler Posts: 26 From: phoenix az USA Registered: Aug 2010 posted 08-13-2011 04:14 PM                     for ppl that loves iphone Link Fixed bad link [ 08-13-2011, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 59 pages: 1  2  3  ...  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.