|Progressive JPEG and browser differences|
| 10:05 am on Mar 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I feel like I've been asleep.
I think I just noticed that IE5.5 doesn't render a progressive jpeg until the whole image is there, and then it drops the graphic onto the page in one piece, fully rendered. Netscape, however, does the multiple scans, progressively sharpening the image as more data downloads.
Is this always the way it is?
| 7:33 pm on Mar 19, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I'll have to check on that when I get back home to my super slow modem connection... I've got IE 3 on my home machine, and if progressive JPEGs don't work 'progressively' on IE 3, we can probably safely assume it's always been that way. ;)
| 7:48 pm on Mar 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Well, I forget that I dumped IE 3 off my home hard drive... oops. But if you want to give a reference link to a large, slow-loading progressive JPEG, I'll look at it here.
It has to be a darn big graphic to be certain though, because my office has a zippy internet connection.
| 10:38 am on Mar 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
OK. Here's a progressive JPEG [mewsgroup.com] of over 600kb
I've already verified the difference between MSIE 5.5 and Netscape 4.7 on Windows. Netscape quickly shows the first scan and progressively renders the sharpening (similar to an interlaced GIF). But Explorer 5.5 show a blank page until the whole file is downloaded. What do you know -- a place where Netscape is superior!
This has important implications for some of my clients, who sell high end art and photography, and often offer enlargements in the 100-200 kb area.
If I make the jpg file standard, and not progressive, then the viewer can at least see the scan line progress down the page in either browser.
If I make the file a progressive jpg, the file is almost always smaller in total size, but nothing at all shows on the MSIE page until everything is downloaded. That would be very unfriendly to visitors on dial-up modems.
| 7:05 pm on Mar 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
In IE 5 for Mac, that image loads in three progressive passes. Must be IE/Win that has the problem... (What do you know -- a place where Macintosh is superior! ;) )
I read yesterday that IE has always had a problem with correctly rendering progressive JPEG files... but apparently they figured out a fix for it in the Mac version.
Considering IE/Win is far and away the most common platform/browser combo though, that could definitely become a problem for image-oriented sites.
| 5:18 pm on Mar 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Definative answer for you Tedster:
From The FireWorks Bible by Joseph W. Lowery page 498
|Internet Explorer doesn't fully support Progressive JPEGs. They are displayed just as if they were not Progressive, though, so there's no harm in using them. |
| 5:40 pm on Mar 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Another quote by the same guy from the same book on page 501:
|Although Internet Explorer displays Progressive JPEG images, it displays them without using the progressive look of developing as they download. They seem to the user to be regular JPEG images. |
| 6:34 pm on Mar 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I got curious and tested this with IE 5, and you're right, it waits until it's got the whole image then displays it all at once. I also tested with Opera 5, and it does the right thing (displays progressively). Both tests done under Win98.
| 9:23 pm on Mar 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>> "They are displayed just as if they were not Progressive, though, so there's no harm in using them." -Joseph W. Lowry
Well, I'd say Mr. Lowry got it wrong. MSIE definitely waits and displays a progressive JPEG all at once, instead of displaying the image gradually from top to bottom, as it does with a standard JPEG.
On these art-oriented sites, I've been accustomed to using a pop-up window to display enlargements. Wherever possible, I will now avoid progressive JPEG. I was trying to be user-friendly, and ended up being unfriendly to the visitor.
I feel it's often a good thing to give the pop-up window a status bar. It's a courtesy, so the viewer can tell if the page is hanging, or just rendering slowly. Unfortunately, Explorer doesn't give the kind of detailed status info that Netscape does, so this is little help with a progressive JPEG. In fact, Netscape 6 also went to less informative status messages. The "AOL-factor" is at work I fear.
My aggravation is that Progressives are the smaller file size, and with a large image, the difference can be considerable. Still, it seems to me that the best choice is to at least show the visitor something, even if the entire download takes a bit longer.
| 12:25 pm on Mar 23, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I know, I've heard that about that book too Tedster. I was surprised when it was getting quoted around here. Yep, the progressive jpeg thing in ie5.5 is a stopper. I try to avoid those when I can, but always define the image size when I must use them.
| 7:03 pm on Mar 23, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>define the image size when I must use them...
Do you mean in pixels, or is there a tag to define the image size in KB so it appears in the status bar?
| 3:33 am on Mar 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>Well, I'd say Mr. Lowry got it wrong. MSIE definitely waits and displays a progressive JPEG all at once, instead of displaying the image gradually from top to bottom, as it does with a standard JPEG.
That's wierd. When I look at it, it does do it from top to bottom .. it *doesn't* wait until the whole thing is loaded. It does a little of the "fade in" like a progressive is supposed to do, but not as much.
Using IE 5.5 on a Mac.
However, for Brett's sake, I will not quote Mr. Lowery again...
<edit_later>Just read Teresa's post...sigh...</edit_ later> What do you know, a place where Mac is superior to PC ;)