Firefox 3 scaling...resolved?

[monkey0506]

Okay so according to the official bug report the scaling issue is reportedly resolved. I tried looking at some images in the CL and I can't tell.

If I zoom in on a pixel image by pressing Ctrl and + then it seems like it's better. But I could be imagining it. Can anyone verify if this is now operating the same as FF2 did? Or is there a hidden setting somewhere I know nothing about?

Although it shows resolved I couldn't find any information on what was actually done about it.

[smiley]

Yeah, seems to be fixed.

But since it's not included in the current stable version or the latest beta, you have to use Minefield.

And you have to add:

Code: ags

img { image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges; }  

to userContent.css, which is somewhere in your Profile folder.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I've been posting in that bug report thread for almost a year and my position still stands on the subject:

The option should've been there from the damn beginning.  Don't force people to view blurry things because you have 500/1000 vision.



Also, there is no usercontent.css file by default.  You have to create it/edit the example file.  What they will do is release a build of firefox that supports a usercontent string to disable filtering but won't place it there themselves, so everyone who wants it will have to do it and those who don't know how will be asking on their forums constantly or just not be aware that they can do it.  A simple properties setting would have worked better and I don't buy Robert O'Callahan's bullshit about web authors needing control over filtering exclusively.  This is what led to the bug being changed from a properties setting to a css workaround and it's stupid.  This is my computer and I will view images as I please, thanks.  Opera's had the functionality from the beginning since they don't think they should be making decisions about how people view images for them.

[Mr Flibble]

Oh thank you Mike for posting this! I was looking for information on this a few days ago and had given up in despair, considering downloading Opera.

I have seen so many flawed arguments for the bicubic scaling (ranging from it saving bandwidth to it being more accurate than the pixel-perfect resize) and Prog is entirely correct. The choice should have been there. At least they're finally realising that people view it as a bug not a feature.

[Snarky]

I don't buy Robert O'Callahan's bullshit about web authors needing control over filtering exclusively.  This is what led to the bug being changed from a properties setting to a css workaround and it's stupid.  This is my computer and I will view images as I please, thanks.

Hmmm... That reminds me of something:

What about doing away with winsetup as it is now? [...] This could have the added bonus of letting the designer create their own configuration file (and encryption for it) so people can't just alter settings through notepad.

I have a problem understanding why some people think the designer of a game shouldn't be in control of these settings and how they are presented.  Certain features (like resolution change) may exist in many games, but it is the developer who decides what features are necessary, what features are implemented, and how they are presented.  If someone has no intention of ever having translations for the game then why have a blank pull-down menu for it (the same goes for midi music)?  What if your simple graphics are distorted by certain filter settings and you'd rather they weren't available to avoid confusion?  What if you'd like to add a few options to the list yourself?  I'm not going to agree with a concept that the developer of a game doesn't have the right to decide what setup options should even exist for their game.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I'm not really sure what your goal was there, but since you brought it up:

The crux of my argument for a designer-controlled winsetup subject was to prevent people from screwing up the image with filters so the game is presented as the author intended.  This doesn't contradict my view on the Firefox issue since Firefox isn't the author of the internet or its content and should not be making decisions for me (or site designers) on how I choose to view it.  This 'fix' to allow site designers to determine whether or not images have filtering is not really a problem for me because places like PixelJoint (and anywhere else that uses low res images) will no doubt apply the setting right away, though it's nice to be able to turn it off myself on sites that it positively destroys.

[Snarky]

I just thought it was funny that your attitude to "web authors needing control over filtering exclusively" would be so different to your attitude to "game authors needing control over filtering exclusively".

"This is my computer and I will view images as I please, thanks" sounds... unlike you. You're usually all about the creator's right to control all aspects of the experience and the presentation.

[InCreator]

Forced image-smooth-scaling sucked ass.
Agreed?
Agreed.
What's to debate?

[TerranRich]

Thank God this has been fixed. Now Firefox is ever so close to perfection...