Does Firefox render pictures better than IE6?

Patricularly jpegs

[steve]

I've justed installed Firefox on my laptop.

Its much quicker than IE, but what I've really noticed is how much clearer pictures, particularly jpegs are compared to IE.

Has anyone noticed this?

[dom86]

I had a look cant see any change at all.

[Sanenet]

Never noticed this. Surely the image rendering is done by the OS, not the browser? Did you install any drivers (ie upgraded DirectX or something?)

[tedster]

Browsers do the rendering on images as far as I know - for instance, there are quite some differences on how png is supported cross-bowser, whether alpha channel transparency is there and so on.

IE has had it wrong with progressive jpgs ever since it started supporting the file format. Instead of rendering these images progressively as intended, the whole file had to be downloaded and then appears all at once. On a slow dial-up this makes progressives slower than standard jpg, defeating one of the main purposes behind using pogressive.

I never noticed a quality issue on this, just a download issue.

[steve]

I've gone back and compared a high quality image (a landscape with lots of detail) side by side in Firefox and IE.

To my eyes there is more detail in the firefox image when the browsers scale the image to fit on the page.

When it's viewed at actual size theres little or no difference.

As I'm using a laptop I'm assuming Firefox must scale the images closer to the natural resolution of my display.

[kaled]

Windows is rubbish at stretching/shrinking images. Firefox probably uses its own algos.

Kaled.

[supermanjnk]

I'm going to ignore everything you said after the first three words :P