I take several photos using iPad. I take them in different orientations (rotate iPad every time on 90 degrees).
Then I download them to my Windows laptop and what I see? I don't see them as I saw them on the screen of iPad. Actually, there is only one valid image. Others are rotated.
I found this problem in browser (FF & Chrome). When you display image using img html tag it is rotated. But if you display it by entering image's full URL - it's totally OK.
I checked pictures via Safari on iPad - they look fine (in img tag), but don't in Windows.
Is there some metadata which shows that image should be rotated or smth like this?
As you know, the iPad has a hardware device in it that tells it the device orientation, which is how it determines how to display the screen to the user. While the hardware instantly knows how it's positioned at any given time, they seem to have engineered a lag into the software registering this change to improve the user experience (so the screen doesn't flip back and forth several times in a single second). However, this lag might lead to some unexpected results when taking a photo.
I have found that the orientation is most often unexpected with the iPhone / iPad when I am taking photos with my screen facing downward (i.e. taking a picture of something on a tabletop, for example). I assume landscape but get portrait, and vice versa. In that scenario (downward / flat), it is more difficult for the device to know what my intended orientation is.
I find the best way to resolve this is to hold the device in the clear orientation that I want for a second before I take the photo, then point the camera downward and snap.
The orientation data is included in an image's metadata (AKA exif data). You can take a look here for more information:
http://www.daveperrett.com/articles/2012/07/28/exif-orientation-handling-is-a-ghetto/
It is relatively easy to retrieve (and modify) the exif data in software. If you are doing lots of batch processing in some type of custom way, libraries are available to help with this for a variety of frameworks. But for small jobs, the absolute most simple way is to click the little "rotate" icon in the image viewer software within Windows which will make the update for you.
Related
Can anyone help me understand why my images are coming out rotated? The images themselves are vertically oriented, but they appear sideways in the web page.
sorry, here is the link
If you're on MacOS or iOS then photos that were taken with incorrect orientation data (because your phone had rotation lock enabled for example) then Finder, Lightroom, Apples Photos app and others can automatically detect this and rotate the photos without changing the original file. But a (non Apple) web server or even Windows, won't recognise these properties out of the box, as these non-destructive edits are stored separately.
If your going to run into this a lot I would recommend installing either a bootstrap compatable extension to batch edit photos server side, or run a batch conversion on your computer or mobile device that "physically" rotates your photos and re-saves the change to the file itself.
This last option is somewhat destructive if you overwrite jpg files as jpg with a compression less than 100% (which is usually the case.)
If you resize photos before uploading to your server anyway the rotation data should already be applied and I advice you to do all edits in one go so the photos only get re-saved once, and not deteriate each time you resave.
One small power tip: you can give very large photos a much higher jpg compression than small photos, but get photos that are, sharper, bigger and with smaller file sizes than if you had prepared a medium downscaled copy that requires a low compression (aka high detail level) setting to still look good. This neat method also makes sure your photo galleries are retina compatable and future proof.
My Ms Access(2010) database uses forms to display and manipulate data. Recently, when presenting these, I found out that the use of these forms on a video projector leads to a severe problem, the forms appear to be 'zoomed' in.
Therefore I have 2 questions, thanks for the answer!
1) How are twips on a video projector calculated? Theoretically this should depend on the distance between projector and screen, which woulnd't make too much sense. (I'd need this information to be able to explain the problem, thank you very very much)
2) How can this be configurated? Is it possible to use VBA or Win32 API to achieve this?
I don’t think this problem has anything to do with TWIPS or with the video projector. Any monitor (analogue, digital, projector, etc.) shows the same picture if it has the same resolution. If you set the output of your computer to i.e. 1024 * 768 pixels and the output device (analogue or digital monitor, projector, etc.) uses the same native resolution then the picture will look the same on each device.
Access works in pixels. If you have a form optimized for a specific amount of pixels then this is what Access uses. If you have a higher resolution then form will not fill the screen and if you have a smaller resolution the form will not be completely shown on the screen.
I guess what happens is that you use on your PC an output of i.e. 1600 * 1200 pixels but your projector can’t show this correctly. So the projector tries to convert i.e. 1600*1200 to 1024*768 and this will never look good.
I think you have two options: Check the resolution which your projector expects and set your PC to the same resolution. Or change your application – or the projector.
In line with what Edgar has suggested, regardless of the display type (projector, monitor etc...) the issue will remain the same. In this scenario, the problem is the form is designed for a given screen size, say 1600x900 (16:9) or 1920x1200 (16:10) or whatever you have chosen to design the form as.
The projector is likely not the same resolution as this. Many smaller projectors are either 1024x768 or 1280x720, both of which are likely smaller than your computer monitor in regards to resolution. While it is true that you could design the forms to the proper pixel dimension of the projector an easier way, that wouldn't require editing any content, would be to send the projector the same resolution that you have designed the forms to be.
For example, if your forms fit nicely on a 1920x1080 pixel space but your projector is 1024x768 then you could open display preferences on your computer and set the output to the projector to be 1920x1080. The projector will then scale the image to fit onto its 1024x768 panel.
There are many variables in here and you may run into equipment limitation with this approach, such as the projector not being capable of ingesting and scaling a given resolution which you are forcing into it. In that instance you could utilize a hardware video scaler inline between the computer and projector to perform the scaling operation for you. An example of a device capable of this would be a Barco ImagePro, though there are many other more cost-effective solutions on the market as well.
The appxmanifest has entries for developers to fill in four different tile resolution images for each kind of tile (small, medium, wide, large), the different resolutions are: scale-180, scale-140, scale-100, scale-80.
From what I can tell if the developer fills in the largest resolution image (scale-180) the system will automatically scale it down when needed on lower resolution displays, thus it works everywhere. So do most developers really even need to bother filling in all the different tile resolution images? Seems like it will just bloat the size of the application for nothing.
My question about filling in the different resolution images not about whether I need to have the small, medium, wide and large images.
It's certainly not necessary, but it is recommended. Scaling images down (or up) can cause visual artifacts that may not be present in the original image. It may be the case that a particular image looks fine in all scaling plateaus, but others may not (this is especially true for bitmap images). Again, it is up to your discretion, but worth visual inspection at each scaling level.
MSDN has a scaling guidelines document that could be helpful.
See the reasons for filling wide tile and small tiles are for different reason.
1 - wide tile
if your app has a live tile notification feature then u need to implement it. But not mandatory. Just a criteria of metro app.
2 - small tile. This is the by default tile of the application so you should go ahead and add it. If theres no live tile concept then you can fill only small tile. The square one.
3 - then there is a place to put in the image that will be used as a tile icon when user searches for it.
and then there is store logo.
all these are by default set to one cross marked logo. Which u generally see. None of them are mandatory but finally while uploading to the store they will become requirement specific and mandatory. Otherwise you will get a long list of improvements to be done on your app from microsoft. :) . Have faced that .
I know you can fake full screen by expanding a window and eliminating the title bar , status bar , and other stuff, I'm not interested in this, I want to know about "real" full screen mode (I don't know how to call it else) , like in games.
what exactly is full screen mode?
what win-api should I use to achieve this?
can this be used to play movies in full screen ? I know windows media player uses a fake full screen because I can "cut" thru it and see the desktop (using regions win-api).
can I "cut" thru "real" full screen like I thru a window (using regions win-api) ore is this directly writing to video memory and there is nothing "under" it?
Thanks!
If you want to make games on Windows in full-screen, the best option is XNA. This uses DirectX underneath, but hides a lot of the implementation details and plumbing to make it easy for the developer to start working on his game.
XNA is freely downloadable, and has good documentation.
XNA Game Studio 4.0 can be downloaded here.
...and you might want to support the "fake" fullscreen mode in addition to "real" fullscreen - it's very nice for those of us that run multi-monitor systems.
If you don't want to use DirectX, create window and call ChangeDisplaySettings with CDS_FULLSCREEN flag. OpenGL applications use this way to go fullscreen.
As far as a user is concerned, full screen is just when a window takes up the entire screen such that they no longer see any window borders or other desktop stuff.
As you know, not all full screens are created equal.
'proper' full screen is where the program takes control of the screen. When a game uses this mode, it can change the resolution of you screen. If you have ever played an old game and existed to see your icons all messed up, this is; for the duration of playing the game, your desktop was at a lower resolution.
with 'borderless full screen' the program window is striped of any borders, the title bar and frame etc., and is just a rectangle of pure rendering. If you then set this rendering context to be the same size as your desktop, you get the effect of full screen.
Doing border-less is usually the more user friendly way these days, as it is easier to 'tab out' as the other programs are still graphically around. 'proper' full screen gives you full control of the hardware, so in theory you have more power for your program, but it means you have to wait for things to reinitialise when you tab out.
what you do with your rendering context is up to you, so yes, you can use it play videos. It would not matter if you are in 'proper' full screen or not, the rendering code would be the same.
As for cutting through proper full screen windows, I am not sure, but I think there would be nothing else to see, there is only your program.
as for what win-api, there is only one windows api, but I think you mean, what windowing library; as this is getting to be a long answer already, I shall just say it depends a lot on what you want from it.
Please feel free to leave comments if you need me to clarify or expand on any points.
I have few question in this regard
When you create an internet page, does the program automatically create 75pdi?
Could we create 300DPI page could this be able communicate on internet ?
What is maximum DPI resolution you can get on a Web page?
Unless the entire web page is just an image file, web pages don't specify a resolution like that. HTML defines the layout and contents of the page, the video and printer drivers determine the resolution it is displayed or printed in.
Meaningless question, see #1.
See #2.
To answer your questions (I'm presuming you're talking about images on a web page, rather than the web page itself, which is created in HTML, etc.)
You should create the image at 72dpi. Most programs with 'Save for web' functionality should convert the image to 72dpi, but you may need to do this yourself.
You could put a 300dpi image on the web and it should display correctly in pretty much all browsers (and should print at the correspondingly higher resolution), but this is a bad idea as it'll be much slower to load/render, will consume bandwidth, etc. As such, I'd really recommend sticking to 72dpi. If you want a high resolution version of an image, link to the raw image file or create a (resolution independent PDF or SVG, etc.)
As above, there's no maximum (although the web site's visitors machines will eventually grind to a halt attempting to decode an 'n' DPI image).
Web displays graphics at 72dpi. If you make an image that is 300dpi, it's going to look much larger on the screen than was intended.
DPI, be it 72 or 300, is only relevant when going to an output device like a printer, talking about DPI for web graphics is meaningless. On the web, all images are shown 1::1. A pixel of data in the image is a pixel of data on the screen.
You can use any DPI you want for a web image. It makes no difference in how it will be displayed.
BUT - if you are working towards the web you can no longer measure things in inches, centimeters of picas. You need to start working with all dimensions in pixels. If you are viewing your graphics in Photoshop, make sure your view is set to 100%. Then you'll be seeing the same thing that will be displayed in the browser.
Everyones browser is different, so a conservative estimate for a static page design is that your page content should be about 900 pixels or so wide. (People are used to scrolling down, so your page height can be whatever you want).