Neue Testversion 18.90b5

[Neonsquare]

- Kommandozeile, Mac OS: Testweise Unterstützung

Ich weiß - kein extrem hilfreiches Feedback, aber: Ihr seid der Hammer! Muss mal gesagt werden.

[Herbert123]

I am having issues with re-saving a gif file with more than 256 colours in Photoline:
http://tweakers.net/ext/f/L9kEhvvZMizHQ ... P/full.gif

This gif file is comprised of 2551 colours, and it loads, but trying to save it as a gif throws an error stating "Error: Picture could not be saved!".

And I would like to make a request for an option to set any custom number of colours when reducing the colours of an image in the "Reduce Colour Count" dialogs: often I need more than 1024, but less than 32768 colours. For example, in the image mentioned above about 2500 colours would be more than enough - but we cannot set a custom colour count, unfortunately. This alone would be an awesome addition for web export.

Many other web export application and dialogs also allow the user to apply a quality mask to decide which parts of the image are more "weighted" than others through a simple greyscale mask, and control where more colours are added. This option is missing in Photoline's web export and colour reduction options. It would be great if this would be added as well.

Untitled.png

Also, I have noticed when I save an optimized reduced colours png file with full transparency, that the mask itself is not reduced in colour? And the fully transparent areas are still exported with full bitmap data intact - when this data would be filled with white or black, it could potentially shave off lots of file size of the final optimized web version.

[mwenz]

At least in the Windows release version, that GIF doesn't load properly. Only the bottom layer has identifiable information.

A GIF isn't limited to the common notion of 256 colors, but each block, or layer, cannot have more than 256 colors. I have a test image using 32,697 colors. Which is rather pointless other than an exercise that it can be done. A GIF with X number of colors becomes very large file-size wise. The test image I have is 180k and the same file as a PNG is only 13.3k

In any case, your GIF saves back out on this system.

[Hoogo]

I am having issues with re-saving a gif file with more than 256 colours in Photoline:

Like Mwenz stated, it doesn't load correctly here on my Win8. But I see the Idea, freaky

And I would like to make a request for an option to set any custom number of colours when reducing the colours of an image in the "Reduce Colour Count" dialogs:

You may like the Ximagic Quantizer plugin. But it doen't have a quality mask either.

Also, I have noticed when I save an optimized reduced colours png file with full transparency, that the mask itself is not reduced in colour? And the fully transparent areas are still exported with full bitmap data intact - when this data would be filled with white or black, it could potentially shave off lots of file size of the final optimized web version.

I'm quite sure that the behaviour once was to fill those areas with white...

[bkh]

At least in the Windows release version, that GIF doesn't load properly. Only the bottom layer has identifiable information.

Same on OS X. With Preview or Quick Look, I can see the individual frames, but the colour palettes seem to be missing – there are strange colours and no transparency in the following frames. So far, I haven't found a program which can display this file correctly (tried Preview, QuickView, GraphicConverter, Safari, Firefox, OpenOffice, Word) – I can see artefacts in the lower right corner, and in most cases, the face has terrible banding.

A GIF isn't limited to the common notion of 256 colors, but each block, or layer, cannot have more than 256 colors. I have a test image using 32,697 colors. Which is rather pointless other than an exercise that it can be done. A GIF with X number of colors becomes very large file-size wise. The test image I have is 180k and the same file as a PNG is only 13.3k

You are probably referring to something like the sample gif on http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/03/26 ... 56-colors/. PL loads and saves this file without any problems, as far as I can see.

So maybe the problem isn't on PL's side?

Btw., is there a png version of the file http://tweakers.net/ext/f/L9kEhvvZMizHQ ... P/full.gif, so that one can see the intended output?

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Hoogo]

Opera and Chrome on WIn8 display the file correctly.

[bkh]

This gif file is comprised of 2551 colours, and it loads, but trying to save it as a gif throws an error stating "Error: Picture could not be saved!".

Saving the gif works here (but then shows the corrupted animation layers), see my previous post.

Also, I have noticed when I save an optimized reduced colours png file with full transparency, that the mask itself is not reduced in colour?

I guess that's what "full transparency" means, so I don't quite see the problem here.

And the fully transparent areas are still exported with full bitmap data intact - when this data would be filled with white or black, it could potentially shave off lots of file size of the final optimized web version.

Seems to work here – tried an 8 bit image with totally black layer mask, saved via Web export, 256 colours, full transparency.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[bkh]

This gif file is comprised of 2551 colours, and it loads, but trying to save it as a gif throws an error stating "Error: Picture could not be saved!".

Saving the gif works here (but then shows the corrupted animation layers), see my previous post.

Also, I have noticed when I save an optimized reduced colours png file with full transparency, that the mask itself is not reduced in colour?

I guess that's what "full transparency" means, so I don't quite see the problem here.

And the fully transparent areas are still exported with full bitmap data intact - when this data would be filled with white or black, it could potentially shave off lots of file size of the final optimized web version.

Seems to work here – tried an 8 bit image with totally black layer mask, saved via Web export, 256 colours, full transparency.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Herbert123]

And I would like to make a request for an option to set any custom number of colours when reducing the colours of an image in the "Reduce Colour Count" dialogs:

You may like the Ximagic Quantizer plugin. But it doen't have a quality mask either.

Also, I have noticed when I save an optimized reduced colours png file with full transparency, that the mask itself is not reduced in colour? And the fully transparent areas are still exported with full bitmap data intact - when this data would be filled with white or black, it could potentially shave off lots of file size of the final optimized web version.

I'm quite sure that the behaviour once was to fill those areas with white...

Ximagic Quantizer is okay, although a bit technical and its GUI somewhat convoluted/awkward. My current workflow is to save any image that I intend to use as a png file as full colour 24bit with transparency, and then optimize in ColorQuantizer, which does a great job and does allow for a custom number of colours, as well as a really simple to use quality mask tool.

Having said that, often I think Photoline does a better job at dithering, and it is a bit odd that we are unable to set a custom number of colours in the colour reduction dialog(s). Any other application I have worked with does allow for a custom setting, so I am wondering why Photoline limits us to only a couple of fixed choices.

I checked the export, and no, when I convert the transparency to a layer mask, the original's content is retained in its full glory. I do recall the save for web function would remove that data - not sure what changed.

I should have kept my mouth shut in regards to the obscure gif images - no-one uses that, and a well optimized png always wins in terms of quality and file size.

[Juan]

Hi all,

Lately with this latest version, I have noticed almost all the time when I open an image, a message: The PLD version of the file is older, Do you want to open it anyway?.
I´m somehow concern about it since I just saved the file and reopened and I get this message. Not sure what is happening...
I´m on Win7 64 and PL 18.90B5 64

EDIT: It happens when I Flatten an image and Save As Tiff, then when I try to open the tiff is when the message appears.

Cheers,
Juan

[Martin Huber]

Lately with this latest version, I have noticed almost all the time when I open an image, a message: The PLD version of the file is older, Do you want to open it anyway?.
I´m somehow concern about it since I just saved the file and reopened and I get this message. Not sure what is happening...
I´m on Win7 64 and PL 18.90B5 64

EDIT: It happens when I Flatten an image and Save As Tiff, then when I try to open the tiff is when the message appears.

If you turned on "Save a PLD file additionally" in "Options > File > Save Options", these kind of messages may appear, if the file date of the TIF and the PLD file do not match.

Do the file dates match after using "Save As"?
Can it be that there is a write-protected PLD-file with the same name as the new TIF?

Martin

[mwenz]

Opera and Chrome on WIn8 display the file correctly.

No, yes...

All a browser and Windows (the icon image) show is the base layer I think, which is fine in the referenced GIF. I don't think they are displaying all layers. Try this. Make an animation of the layers and load that into a browser.

Mike

[Hoogo]

Opera and Chrome on WIn8 display the file correctly.

No, yes...

All a browser and Windows (the icon image) show is the base layer I think, which is fine in the referenced GIF. I don't think they are displaying all layers. Try this. Make an animation of the layers and load that into a browser.

Mike

When I opened the file in PL, I could clearly see effects of color reduction on the background layer, most easily spotted in the greens on the left. The original file looked fine in my Browsers, without these banding effects.

[mwenz]

Opera and Chrome on WIn8 display the file correctly.

No, yes...

All a browser and Windows (the icon image) show is the base layer I think, which is fine in the referenced GIF. I don't think they are displaying all layers. Try this. Make an animation of the layers and load that into a browser.

Mike

When I opened the file in PL, I could clearly see effects of color reduction on the background layer, most easily spotted in the greens on the left. The original file looked fine in my Browsers, without these banding effects.

This is what I see when I open that file in the release version. When I shut off all the layers except the first one and compare it to the image in Opera, I see no discernible difference.

capture-002300.png

[Hoogo]

This is what I see when I open that file in the release version. When I shut off all the layers except the first one and compare it to the image in Opera, I see no discernible difference.

Same here, but the version displayed in Opera is obviously smooth here. By the way, it's an older Opera, but Chrome looks just the same. And I can see the picture building up, so I guess this is some hack with an animated gif that doesn't restart the animation.