Closed Bug 152192 Opened 24 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Colors in images and in HTML don't mean the same thing

Categories

(Core :: Graphics: ImageLib, defect)

x86
All
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: brackbillbruce, Unassigned)

Details

Attachments

(2 files)

I set a image to a websafe color. Mozilla ( and NS 4.7 for that matter ) displays the color differently than it is set to in the images palette. IE displays the image correctly. See attachment for example. I am using win 95 16bit color.
I see this on Linux with 2002072204. 16-bit truecolor. On the left, I get c5ce94. On the right, cdce9c. In GIMP, if I create a splotch of CCCC99, then past in a screen shot, I'm not really sure which is closer. [Gimp is dithering, btw.] Gimp does show the GIF has CCCC99. <rant>How can converting from 24-bit to 16-bit truecolor be so hard? It's only taking the five high bits of each byte. perl -e 'printf "%X\n", 0xCCCC99 & 0xF8F8F8' says C8C898. I think X11 is using my display for stenagraphy ;-)</rant>
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
OS: Windows 95 → All
Summary: websafe Image colors are not displayed as set in images palette → Colors in images and in HTML don't mean the same thing
One thing I forgot to add: In neither case is Mozilla dithering.
see discussion in bug 114701
Assignee: pavlov → nobody
QA Contact: tpreston → imagelib
We don't dither images by hand anymore, so this should no longer be a problem.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: