Image Quality in Firefox, IE, and Chrome

Jtring

I've not always been fully pleased with the image quality I've seen with the new Smugmug. In the course of investigating, I've found some significant differences between browsers, especially in the lightbox. There, the images are the largest and there can be considerable rescaling: Smugmug sends an X3-sized image (or whatever) and tells the browser to scale it to fit. That's unlike the old Smugmug which didn't ask for any lightbox rescaling. I thought I'd write up what I've seen and see if others have anything to add. For background I'm using Windows 7 Professional, SP1, with an NVIDIA GeForce GT200 video card and a HP2475w monitor (1920x1200).

• Firefox 25 produces relatively soft, blurry images in the lightbox that slowly sharpen over several seconds ... in the case where Smugmug right click protection is on. On the other hand, Firefox 25 produces much more reasonable images when right click protection is off. Lamah pointed out to me in an earlier thread (http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=241659) that Smugmug uses different approaches to display images in the two cases.

• IE 10 produces results much like FF25's better images, maybe just a tad softer. The right click protection status makes no difference.

• Chrome 30 is a sharper than any of the others, again with right click protection making no difference. Some images that I put up about a month ago (with the new SmugMug) that looked about right in Firefox at the time seem over-sharpened in Chrome. I may do a little photo editing.

I'm frankly a little surprised at how awful Firefox can be. Disappointed too, since it's been my browser of choice for several years. Worse, it means that anyone else looking at my site will have a better or worse experience depending on their choice of browser. Searching the web, I gather Firefox has had a history of image scaling problems. So my image quality concerns look to be more a Firefox issue than a Smugmug issue. For now, I may be doing my Smugmug viewing in Chrome and telling my friends and family to do likewise. Still, I know websites, browsers, and video cards live in an interacting ecosystem and there are accommodations all around. If there is anything Smugmug could do to work around Firefox's quirks and limitations, it would be welcome. (Might avoid scaring away a few potential new Smugmug clients too.)

Jim Ringland
jtringl.smugmug.com

dennismullen

I have all of these problems with Firefox. I agree using another browser is not a solution as Firefox is the most used browser by customers.


The picture selected in a gallery is not very accurate when it has a white pinstripe around it because it is often missing on one or two sides.
It happens in the slideshow too.
It is discussed here...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=242247


When showing a 1920 x 1080 Original Size picture on a 1920 x 1080 monitor in full screen mode there are scroll bars on both sides even though the picture would fit.
This is discussed here...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=241183


In Tools > Organize > Replace, after selecting the replacement file the file-name doesn't show in the space next to the "Browse Button".
The problem, if you look closely, is that the font is white with a white background.
It is discussed here...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=239826


The drop down list of gallery page numbers covers up part of the total page number when over two digits.
There is also an unneeded down arrow to the right.
It is discussed here...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=240677

Cheers,