http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=9812.0
Here's one of those images with the tag info after the filetype that cause the filter settings to $&#$ up. Turns out it was tinypic again.

So the image filter works out great, except under a couple instances if it's from tinypic. Maybe we should just ban tinypic

It's annoying because I'd like to keep the filter working on jpgs and those sorts of files. Does anyone know a way of writing the usercontent file so it doesn't get tripped up by the tag info appearing after the ".png" part

Quote

img[src$=".gif"] { image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges; -ms-interpolation-mode: nearest-neighbor; }
img[src$=".png"] { image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges; -ms-interpolation-mode: nearest-neighbor; }

This doesn't work. To see why, look at this image, which is a PNG:



Temporary fix, add these lines:

Code: [Select]

img[src$=".GIF"] { image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges; -ms-interpolation-mode: nearest-neighbor; }
img[src$=".PNG"] { image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges; -ms-interpolation-mode: nearest-neighbor; }
I'm sure there's a better way, but I can't be bothered to find out

I posted about that on pixel joint a short while ago.
http://pixeljoint.com/2009/06/15/2859/Fix_Firefox.htm

I've noticed a couple other instances that have failed. For example, somebody posted a gif with a jpg ending(it was a tinypic). It had filtering applied to it. I've also noticed some strangeness when someone posts a photbucket image with some id number stuff after the .png.

Rather than looking for some sort of "official" GB palette, I would just make your own tinted greyscale that provides a versatile range of values. Check out the mockups on the follwing link to see what I mean. Just don't use a non-tinted grey. Much too boring.

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=5016.0

I imagine you're seeing different values for the greyscale all over the place because they probably didn't have RGB values since that would require extra memory to store the values. That'd be a waste since only the values 0-3 are necessary to denote which greyscale value was to be used.

I didn't know jpgs could be animated! Learn something new everyday I guess.
Check out my post on this thread for my suggestion. Sorry for being lazy
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=9733.0

Welcome to the forum.

EDIT: Ack! If I download your image I get a gif, but on this website it says it's a jpg. I guess tinypic is playing funny with me. Almost got me, too, since I don't get image filtering on pngs/bmps/gifs but do on jpgs. I took at look at your image after downloading to my harddrive. My biggest crit would be that you're just cutting off pixels when your birdie starts bobbing.

If something gets smaller heightwise, then this must be made up by an expansion along the width. Your image is only shrinking in height without growing in width. Also, if you have one of those rubber stress balls lying around go take a look at what happens to the highlights/midtones/shadows when you squeeze it. Your H/M/S aren't really changing to reflect the changed surface like they would in real life. Because of these two things, your animation looks like the top half of birdie's head is just moving up and down.