In a design that I'm working on, there is a recurring image background shape that appears several times in different sizes throughout the site. For example, one page uses it as a huge background images, where the top and bottom part of this image is cut off by the browser edges.
It's not an easy pattern to create with canvas, but as far as I know it's possible. Here's what it looks like.
Am I better off making several images of this same pattern or is this background image easy to recreate through canvas? If it is appropriate for canvas, how do I go about recreating it in the various sizes? I wish I knew how to begin something like this using canvas but it's above my skillset.
I've converted your shape to an SVG shape here: https://gist.github.com/1321653 — use it as you'd like.
According to caniuse.com, SVG is supported on all common browsers except for IE8 and earlier.
For IE8 and earlier you might be able to combine canvg, a SVG-to-canvas library, with explorercanvas, a canvas emulator for IE8 and earlier. Or you could display a rectangle with a background color — IE users might not miss the splat.
Edit: You could also get creative with CSS3 background gradients, ala http://www.ecsspert.com/ (famous logos created with only CSS), but compatibility is low across browsers.
Related
my question may seems not new, but as far as I searched for days I couldn't find my answer.
I'm trying to make a webpage with PIXI.js which uses webGL.
My webpage is mouse movement parallax, I mean all the movements an object can have is few pixels when the user moves his/her mouse pointer.
Now my problem: I have some simple images and i don't know to use svg or png.
My images are like these:
https://1drv.ms/i/s!Aj-BeFYyTnRzhTBSVEXXeJ2c-O7V
https://1drv.ms/i/s!Aj-BeFYyTnRzhTFeTzJLrWaq_VFh
https://1drv.ms/i/s!Aj-BeFYyTnRzhTIa9lAaS9dKX1DL
I want to make my webpage as smooth as possible and I don't know to use png or svg. I searched a lot, some says it depends on the png and svg, in my case my svgs won't be too complex but some says because svg use CPU and the WebGL use GPU using them both, cause lack of performance, and also some says which using svg in PIXI makes no difference than the png because PIXI makes texure from them and there won't be any deference...
I'm new to webGL and Pixi so now with these answers I became confused, by the way, for my case the images size is not mattered, I only wanted as much smoothness as possible.
thanks a lot for your help.
It doesn't make a difference for runtime performance, the SVGs will be rasterized into textures either way. However during initialization where the browser neeeds to rasterize the SVGs to create a texture from them there might be a significant performance penalty depending on how complex your SVGs are.
However since you're developing for the web aforementioned penalty is easily offset by the fact that you're loading the SVGs from a server which introduces way more latency than rasterizing the SVG will, even more so if you consider the size difference between a rasterized PNG and a SVG(assuming you're not planning to create tiny textures from them).
So final verdict, go with SVG, its lossless and small aswell as resizable and editable from within client code. It also saves you from exporting your source assets to PNG everytime you change something.
I have noticed that when I view a image in a browser using either the zoom provided in the setting or on a webpage using style attributes the pixelation is either negligible or un noticable. But when you use programs such as paint or photoshop or windows picture viewer you start to notice pixelation. Does anyone know how the browser zoom its image contents?
Here is a sample image the one on right is from paint while one on left is when viewing in chrome. The zoom is set at 500%.
For fonts, I believe it has to do with font sizing. Okay, so say you are in a word processor and type something up you increase the font size the text gets bigger. A similar thing happens in a web browser when you zoom in.
On the other hand when you take an image the resolution is set so as you zoom in the the pixels become larger and more noticeable this is called aliasing. Many times a program or browser, etc. will try and smooth the edges in the image to make the pixels look less blocky to the eye, this is called anti-aliasing.
As far as the actual algorithms behind behind paint or a web browser go, I am unsure. It may take some more research to find out.
I am experiencing bad rendering of SVG image with Firefox on Ubuntu. You can see on the attached image that the letter J has a little black line below it. This artifact happens only at certain zoom levels. The image is added with the <img> tag, so it is not a background. The image is created with Inkscape. It renders properly on Chrome, I didn't try on other OS.
Is there a way to fix this keeping SVG ?
EDIT: since this affect only the image on the border, I found a workaround opening the SVG in a text editor and increasing the height and the width of a couple of pixels which means leaving a bit of transparent padding around the text.
I am still curious if this is a firefox bug though
In Principle the rendering of SVG is not worse in Firefox than in any other browser. But each browser has its own little lacks in rendering, especially when shapes are close to each other and scaling comes into play.
So I might suggest to review your graphic and give a little room around the letter, so that there is no shape »snapping« directly to the outline of the letter. Unfortunately I cannot see the code of your graphic, but I am pretty sure that the issue is caused by shapes which are very close to each other (arranged by »snapping«) and there is no »saving overlap«.
For Fonts there is Hinting, what optimizes the rendering, especially for small sizes, but for SVG there is no such thing and since you cannot say for sure how each browser will handle those »edge cases« it is up to you to prepare the graphic so that those failures cannot appear.
We are currently using PNGs in production for icons, but as a designer I'm trying to push for using SVG's for the benefit of:
a. Rendering on Retina.
b. Visually impaired users that zoom in.
c. An easier workflow when creating icons.
Are there any researches that compares the 3 methods? (PNG Sprite vs SVG sprite vs Icon fonts) in terms of performance?
If not, what and how would you compare them? (For example, I heard SVG requires more CPU power, and I have no idea how to test it or what are the consequences).
Thanks a lot! You are an amazing community.
BTW, this is what I could find:
svgs are cool, but icon fonts are just 10% of their file size
SVG + Icon Fonts:
Iconserving - SVG or Webfont?
Ten reasons we switched from an icon font to SVG
Not an answer but it will be not readable in comments
PNG's are raster images
So for render they just need to be decompressed which need CPU power but nowdays is this not so bad.
SVG's are vector XML files
Which means that you need to:
read XML text
decode it to some vector graphic capable engine/class
render vector graphics based image
Complicated SVG's (>300MB vector utf-8) have load/decode/render times even in minutes on fast machines (if decoded everything). If you decode just the basics you can do the same in seconds, but lost advanced features.
Many will not agree with this: 'problem is there is not a single 100% compatible easy to implement SVG library ... at least that I know of' but take in mind I do not use frameworks or environments for WEB like JAVA or PHP ... Also each SVG lib has it own quirks. If you compare rendered SVG between different web or image viewers then it is not the same and many features aren't supported everywhere.
You can code your own SVG decoder but it is bit complicated. If you want just basic functionality like path and shapes without animations or gradients then it is relatively easy to do, but if you want to implement everything you would spend a lot of time with that.
For a time I had a big problem finding good free SVG editor. The only one 'usable' I found was Inkspace but it is slow and a bit user unfriendly for my taste. On the other hand it can open almost every type of SVG I use in the right way...
[Notes]
If you want to use SVG's for icons I strongly recommend to render them to raster on App start and then use just raster images like bitmaps from memory to avoid performance problems.
I have a site that I have built, with a colour scheme based around the companies graphic. This has a gradient from left to right, fading to white. I use the image at the top of the pages.
To provide the same gradient down the page, I took a pixel or two wide cut from the bottom of this image, which I them repeat down my page. This works perfectly well, giving me the right gradient across my screen.
In firefox, there is no break between the bottom of my header image and the top of my repeated background gradient - which is as expected. The colours match, so they should appear continuous. However, in IE7, the top image appears very slightly lighter than the rest of the background. I initially thought that this was because I think IE does not always render style colours correctly, but then I realised that it is not a style, it is an image. I cannot understand why these two images are being rendered differently.
Unfortunately, because of who my client is, I cannot include pictures, and I accept that this will make it harder for anyone to answer, but if there are any suggestions, I would love to know why this is happening.
Thank you.
Try saving them in a different format. I think this has to do wkth color calibration performed in certain computers (can be set up in Windows fo example, but as I am writing this on the go from my mobile I cant/wont do more research). I think JPEG des not care about this setting and PNG do, or the other way around. Someone else can probably describe it way better..