Afternoon all,
I'm building a custom ribbon in VB .NET for Excel 2013/6 and have made images that show up looking like they are hand drawn with a crayon.
My images are 50x50 pixel PNGs and set to small size.
I note here that there are recommended dimensions:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd316921(v=vs.85).aspx
Are the images required to be exactly those pixel dimensions and if not, any ideas why they show up not sharp?
I have also tried different starting file types (PNG, JPEG, BMP) which didn't help.
For the Office Ribbon UI the accepted sizes are 32x32 or 16x16. The former will give higher resolution.
The optimal file format is *.png.
The link you provide is for Windows Ribbon, not the Office Ribbon, which is why the result you're getting is not what you expect.
Related
I have icons (.ico) in my vb6 application. They are of various dimension 16x16 and 32x32.
I want all the icons to be converted to 48x48 256 image format. Can I load a 48x48 icon file (.ico) in a VB6 form?
I want to know if VB6 support any other image format apart from .ico files?
Thanks
VB6 is capable of using icon files (.ico), including icon files with 48x48 pixel icons. I presume you were referring to Icons that can be assigned to forms for the purpose of displaying them on their title bars, in the far top-left corner. This can be done by assigning an Icon file to each form's Icon property during design time; or at run time, usually from either an ImageList control or Resource file (.res). However, with the exception of some Cursor files (.cur), VB6 is not capable of displaying an image for the same purpose, using another file format other than .ico (.bmp, .gif, .jpg, etc. cannot be used).
Icon images can also be used to display images elsewhere on forms, such as through the use of the PictureBox and Image controls.
Please note that there is no need to convert multiple icons to a particular format, as single Icon files (.ico) are capable of storing multiple icons of different dimensions and colour depths. When multiple icons are present within a program's icon resource, Windows Explorer will display the appropriate icon dimension for a particular file / folder view. For example, a 16x16 pixel version of the icon will be shown in "Small Icon", "Details" and "List" views, while a 48x48 pixel version will appear when the view is set to "Medium Icons". When a particular version of an icon is not available, Windows Explorer will usually try to use one of the other versions that is closest to what needs to be displayed for a particular view, which may involve stretching an icon to a larger or smaller size. Pixels of colours not able to be displayed from a high colour (24 bit) icon in a 256 colour mode, will be converted automatically to their closest equivalents, from a default system colour palatte. The disadvantage of the absence of multiple versions of the same icon, is that the quality of the icons will be reduced in particular file / folder views.
I'm building a web application (RoR) that manages images that are in raw image format. I need to create thumbnail/web versions of these images to be displayed on the site. Currently, I'm using imagemagick, which delegates to dcraw to produce the jpeg thumbnail. The problem I'm running into is that the thumbnail deviates from the look of the original; the image gets darker and the white balance is sometimes heavily shifted.
I'm assuming that the raw format default setting can't be read by dcraw, and thus it's left guessing how to parameterize the raw conversion. I can play around with customizing these setting, but it seems getting it right on one image causes others to be further off the mark.
Is there a better way to do this in order to get a result that more closely mimics the what I might see in a raw viewer like photoshop, or even Mac OSX preview? Given that Mac OS X supports a variety of digital camera raw formats, is there anyway to utilize the OS's ability to render preview images (especially considering that result is what is expected).
The raw images that I'm using are 3FRs and fffs (both from Hasselblad).
I can post samples if people are interested.
Thanks
Look at "sips" and "Resizing images using the command line" to get you started.
I have an Autocad drawing which is a plan for land squares where each square contains a number.
I tried to convert it to image by choosing: File --> Export Data --> and file format Bitmap (bmp). (I have Autocad 2013 Mac version)
the file converted to image, but the quality is too bad, I can't see the land numbers inside the square when I zoom in the image.
I tried also with Postscript (PS file format), quality is a bit better but it's still bad.
Is there away to convert Autocad file to image but still preserve it's high quality details
I need to convert the file to image because I would like to publish it online on my website. maybe there other was to publish autocad file on line, if so, please advice. But the trick I want the background of the autcad (plan) to be transparent so that I could display it on top of Google maps. I if I used autocad plugin I can't make it transparent. right?
Use the PLOT (for the current drawing) or PUBLISH (for batching) commands to produce high quality images.
I have a report that renders images (jpg) that have been collected from various sources. This works fine within the report viewer, and when exporting via Excel.
However, when exporting to PDF, about 5% of the images are rendered incorrectly as can be seen below, with the original on the left, and what is rendered on the right;
I find that if I open up one of these images in mspaint, and just click save, on the next report-run the image is now rendered correctly.
Are there any rules as to what image properties/format are valid for SSRS to render the image correctly within a PDF? Essentially I'd like to somehow find these images that will render incorrectly before the report is run and fix them prior...
Current Workaround
I never ended up getting SSRS to display the the problem images as they were, however, determining before running the report which images would be included in the non-displayable set so they could be converted to a supported format (automatically) was also a solution.
In my case, all images were supplied via users uploading to a website, so I was able to identify and convert images as they arrived. For all existing images, I was able to run a script that identified the problem images and convert them.
Identifying problem images
From the thousands of images I had, I was able to determine that the images that wouldn't render correctly had the following properties:
Image had CMYK colorspace or;
Image had extended color profiles or;
Both of the above
Converting an image
I was originally using the standard .NET GDI (System.Drawing) to manipulate images however the API is often prone to crashes (OutOfMemoryException) when dealing with images that have extra data. As such, I switched to using ImageMagick where for each of the identified images I:
Stripped the color profiles and;
Converted to RGB
Note that the conversion to RGB from CMYK without stripping the color profiles was not enough to get all images to render properly.
I ended up just doing those items on every image byte stream I received from users (without first identifying the problem) before saving an uploaded image to disk. After which, I never had the rendering problem again.
Because of the way the output looks I would say those JPEG images have CMYK colorspace but the SSRS assumes they use RGB colorspace and sets the wrong colorspace in PDF.
If you can post a JPEG image and a sample PDF I can give you more details.
I've had exactly the same problem with an image rendering correctly on screen but appearing like the one in the question when I exported the report to PDF. Here's how I solved it.
The Problem
The first clue was this article I came across on MSDN. It seems that regardless of the original image density, the PDF renderer in SSRS resizes all images to 96 DPI. If the original size of the image is larger than the size of the page (or container), then you will get this problem.
The Solution
The solution is to resize the source image such that it will fit on your page. The requires a little calculation depending on your page size and margin settings.
In my case, I'm using A4 paper size, which is 21cm by 29.7cm. However, my left margin is 1.5cm, and my right margin is 0.5cm, for a total inner width of 19cm. I allow an extra 0.5 cm as a margin of error, so I use an inner width of 18.5cm.
21 cm - 1.5 cm - 0.5 cm - 0.5 cm = 18.5 cm
As noted before, the resolution generated by the PDF renderer is 96 DPI (dots per inch). For those of us not in the United States or Republic of Liberia, that's 37.79 DPC (dots per centimetre). So, to get our width:
18.5 cm * 37.79 dpc = 699 pixels
Your result may be different depending on (1) the paper size you are using, and (2) the left and right margins.
As the page is higher than it is wide, we need only resize the width while keeping the image proportional. If you're using a paper size which is wider than it is tall, you'd use the length instead.
So now open the source image in Paint (or your image editor of choice), and proportionally resize the image to the desired width (or length) in pixels, save it, import it into your container, and size the image visually with respect to the container. It should look the same on screen, and now render correctly to PDF.
This is an issue reported to Microsoft Connect.
From SSRS 2008 How to get the best image quality possible?:
The image behavior you see in PDF is a result of some image conversions that the PDF renderer does, based on how the PDF specification requires that serialize images into PDF.
We know it's not ideal, and we classify the loss of image quality as a product issue. Therefore, it's difficult to really say what to do to get the best quality image.
Anecdotally, I have heard that customers have good results when the original image is a BMP
Here is an image:
This image is a simple black-to-transparent gradient saved in full RGBA PNG.
Here is the same image, converted to indexed-alpha PNG by GIMP (Photoshop produces the same result)
As you can see, the gradient is now half-opaque, half-transparent.
Here is the same image again, only this time it was converted to indexed-alpha PNG by a PHP script I wrote:
So my question is: Why are GIMP and Photoshop unable to support partial transparency in indexed images, when the PHP script clearly shows that such an image can be created with no problems?
Is there anything "wrong" with an image whose pallette contains alpha information?
A more programming-related question: Does this transparency in the last image work in Internet Explorer 6?
I've finally found the actual answer: There is a metadata entry that allows you to define the alpha value of each colour in the colour table. Most graphics programs don't make use of this, but it does exist and can be used, in particular by GD.
Another option besides fireworks is pngquant, a command line application that will convert a rgba png into an indexed png with transparency.
I found this post which talks some more about how to use it.
IE6 and earlier in windows does not support variable transparency PNGs without annoying workarounds. An indexed PNG will only show the fully opaque parts which usually works pretty well. A drop shadow would disappear but the opaque parts of the logo or icon would continue to show.
This page has a better explanation and instructions with more png compression and quantization tools: http://calendar.perfplanet.com/2010/png-that-works/
For the record, PNG does not literally support indexed images with an alpha channel. What is really happening is that PNG allows you to add additional colors to the color table (i.e. index) with alpha values in those colors... not a complete alpha channel. FWIW...
Yeah I know what you mean. Fireworks is the only image editing program that I know of that can create and edit PNG8+Alpha without problems. I wish more paint programs would support this format cause Fireworks is expensive!
I found a way in GIMP to create or convert an image with reduced color palette and alpha channel.
The trick is to add a mask to the layer.
Full steps to reproduce:
Have your image in one layer
Add a mask to the layer. Select Transfer layer's alpha channel.
Convert to Indexed (Image -> Mode -> Indexed...)
Save as PNG
Now your image has reduced colors and reduced size, but it keeps your smooth transparency.