Closed
Bug 1096523
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
Firefox Developer Edition bitmap looks awful with hiDPI (logo image)
Categories
(Firefox :: Installer, defect)
Firefox
Installer
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Firefox 40
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox40 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: robert.strong.bugs, Assigned: robert.strong.bugs)
References
Details
Attachments
(5 files, 2 obsolete files)
See screenshot. I think the options and downloading page background color should also be changed to a color closer to the first page graphic background.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
I think using the following bmp as a guide would help http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/branding/nightly/appname.bmp shorlander, I'll test it out if you can provide a new bmp.
Flags: needinfo?(shorlander)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Summary: Firefox Dev Edition bitmap looks awful with hiDPI → Firefox Dev Edition bitmap looks awful with hiDPI (logo image)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Summary: Firefox Dev Edition bitmap looks awful with hiDPI (logo image) → Firefox Developer Edition bitmap looks awful with hiDPI (logo image)
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(shorlander)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
Stephen, can I get a new bitmap for this or help out in some way to get this fixed?
Flags: needinfo?(shorlander)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
Stephen, can you create a bitmap for Firefox Developer Edition with the qualities of the nightly bitmap as you did way back when? Thanks
Attachment #8599002 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8599003 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8599008 -
Flags: feedback?(shorlander)
Comment 8•9 years ago
|
||
Yes. I will have to play around with it a bit. Not sure why it works some times but not others.
Flags: needinfo?(shorlander)
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•9 years ago
|
||
It is due to HiDPI... same problem you fixed by creating the larger images similar to the nightly image when the stub installer was first implemented
Comment 10•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Robert Strong [:rstrong] (use needinfo to contact me) from comment #9) > It is due to HiDPI... same problem you fixed by creating the larger images > similar to the nightly image when the stub installer was first implemented Resolution wise the Developer Edition image is the same @4x size we used before for Aurora and Nightly. The dimensions are different: 369 x 174 for the Dev Edition image vs. the previous 944 x 144 for the Aurora image. So I don't fully understand why this image is not scaling cleanly. Although it might have to do with the dimensions of the image not matching what is in branding.nsi (http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/branding/aurora/branding.nsi#29) It should be 372 x 176 I will change it to match those. Not sure how I ended up with those weird dimensions anyway :)
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
I increased the height of the bitmap by 1 pixel so it rounded properly and used the following for dialog units !define APPNAME_BMP_WIDTH_DU 123u !define APPNAME_BMP_HEIGHT_DU 56u Stephen, what do you think?
Attachment #8599352 -
Flags: feedback?(shorlander)
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8599008 -
Flags: feedback?(shorlander)
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8600527 -
Flags: review?(shorlander)
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8600527 [details] [diff] [review] patch Stephen, I'd like to get this landed before the merge. Thanks!
Attachment #8600527 -
Flags: review?(shorlander) → review?(spohl.mozilla.bugs)
Comment 15•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8600527 [details] [diff] [review] patch Review of attachment 8600527 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- The dialog in comment 11 certainly looks much better than before. Please make sure that my r+ is sufficient before landing. Thanks!
Attachment #8600527 -
Flags: review?(spohl.mozilla.bugs) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•9 years ago
|
||
I discussed this with Gavin before requesting review and if there are changes needed it can be done in a followup after this lands.
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•9 years ago
|
||
Pushed to fx-team https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/fx-team/rev/84a6852a3733
Assignee: nobody → robert.strong.bugs
Flags: in-testsuite-
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 40
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 20•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8599352 [details]
intro page
It does look better. But some of the magenta color that is supposed to be transparent is bleeding through.
Attachment #8599352 -
Flags: feedback?(shorlander)
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•9 years ago
|
||
The magenta color is likely not the correct magenta color and that is as good as I could get it with my image editing tools. The one thing I notice about the nightly appname.bmp and the aurora appname.bmp is that the edges are smooth in the nightly one and jagged in the aurora one. I suspect that if the aurora one was smoothed out like the nightly one along with the change to the image dimensions that it would fix that.
Comment 22•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Robert Strong [:rstrong] (use needinfo to contact me) from comment #21) > The magenta color is likely not the correct magenta color and that is as > good as I could get it with my image editing tools. The one thing I notice > about the nightly appname.bmp and the aurora appname.bmp is that the edges > are smooth in the nightly one and jagged in the aurora one. I suspect that > if the aurora one was smoothed out like the nightly one along with the > change to the image dimensions that it would fix that. The Nightly BMP is also sharp AFAIK — http://cl.ly/image/3Y2k0T2o2K0c. My understanding of how the transparency is that it samples the top left pixel and is supposed to make that color transparent. I will try a few things once my build is complete.
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•9 years ago
|
||
Filed bug 1162796 for the remaining issue.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•