This has fixed itself. I don't know how or why. But after installing 10.9.2 and
rebooting the tiff files with varying alpha values look the same as png files.
I don't think it was the update to 10.9.2 but I've got no proof, but instead I
think it is related to the fact that I've occasionally had
On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:59, Kevin Meaney wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:40, David Duncan wrote:
>>
>> How are you generating these images? Specifically, the CGImageRef you pass
>> to CGImageDestination and the pixels backing it.
>>
>> PNG does not store premultiplied image data, so the pixels wi
On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:40, David Duncan wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Kevin Meaney wrote:
>> I'd already done that, but doing it again made me realize that the problem
>> is 100% associated with the alpha channel. Where the pixels are fully opaque
>> everything is fine. Where pixels are
On Feb 24, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Kevin Meaney wrote:
>
> On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:04, Bill Dudney wrote:
>>
>> Make sure that what you are looking at is what you think you are looking at.
>> When you look at it in Preview is it being scaled? If so then the default
>> scaling algorithm in Preview
On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:04, Bill Dudney wrote:
>
> Make sure that what you are looking at is what you think you are looking at.
> When you look at it in Preview is it being scaled? If so then the default
> scaling algorithm in Preview for TIFF might be 'fast but ugly’ (I don’t know,
> just gues
On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:08, Sandy McGuffog wrote:
> You should not be seeing worse image quality for TIFF unless very different
> options are being used in each case. Can you tell what about the image
> quality is worse?
That was my assumption which is why I was confused. As per my reply to Bill
You should not be seeing worse image quality for TIFF unless very different
options are being used in each case. Can you tell what about the image quality
is worse?
Sandy
On Feb 24, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Kevin Meaney wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:21, Mike Abdullah wrote:
>
>> On 24 Feb 2014,
On Feb 24, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Kevin Meaney wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:21, Mike Abdullah wrote:
>
>> On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:00, Kevin Meaney wrote:
>>> I've written a command line tool that takes an image file (when testing I'm
>>> using JPEG files) and applies a custom CIFilter (a naive ch
On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:21, Mike Abdullah wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:00, Kevin Meaney wrote:
>> I've written a command line tool that takes an image file (when testing I'm
>> using JPEG files) and applies a custom CIFilter (a naive chroma key filter
>> I've written) and saves a file to disk.
On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:00, Kevin Meaney wrote:
> I've written a command line tool that takes an image file (when testing I'm
> using JPEG files) and applies a custom CIFilter (a naive chroma key filter
> I've written) and saves a file to disk. Sampling the command line tool when
> processing f
I've written a command line tool that takes an image file (when testing I'm
using JPEG files) and applies a custom CIFilter (a naive chroma key filter I've
written) and saves a file to disk. Sampling the command line tool when
processing files shows it is spending 90% of its time writing the png
11 matches
Mail list logo
