![]() ![]() ![]() JPEG XL isn't going to be a hardship for any major desktop browser / system and probably the top ~40%(?) of tablets / phones etc. If people are mining crypto in browser script and playing DOOM from javascript and whatever else I'd think merely decoding a few megabytes or less of Or similarly all the 3D PDF stuff or whatever I guess. but still not (?) asĪ first class citizen encoding but rather something that is decoded and rendered by pdf.js or whatever script decoder / renderer, right?īut nobody complains browsers don't support PDF. Nowadays I gather most all phone / desktop browsers support PDF view etc. Handle that and display it or whatever or save it. Way back in the day browsers didn't have say PDF support and if you sent down a MIME type PDF whatever the browser could either invoke a plug in to XHR or whatever and have ecmascript or wasm or wgl shaders or whatever else one can do these days decode and render them on the client pageĬanvas whatever or even convert them to JPG, PNG, WEBM client side and dynamically render that to the DOM / canvas / whatever. In particular if you're a web site controlling the content / web server and you have your vast library of cat pictures in JPEG XL format on the back endĪnd someone with the bionic badger browser v7 visits your site and wants to see a page with the images then one would imagine it'd be noīig deal if one is determined to have that work one could just send the JPEG XL blobs to the client using whatever is trendy today WebSockets or If browser X "supports" some image format? If the selection isn’t grayed out and you can actually click on it, there’s your problem.I think that Pale Moon and Waterfox are still the only browsers that support JPEG-XL though.I have been out of the loop of browser configuration and programming details for a few years but um why does it matter (as much) these days However, if the selection is grayed out (meaning there’s already an alpha channel added,) then something else has gone wrong. This may seem like common knowledge, but it’s a mistake that even I foolishly make once in a while. The eraser will only work on the layer you have selected, so if you’re furiously trying to erase an image and nothing is happening on your canvas, it’s probably because you have a different layer selected. Double check to make sure you’ve activated the correct later. If you have an active selection within GIMP at the moment, the eraser is only going to erase whatever is inside of that selection. To rectify this, go to Select -> None and see if that does the trick. Eraser OpacityĪ less common reason why you may be having trouble erasing your image could be because the eraser opacity is set to 0. Check the Tool Options panel and make sure the Opacity slider is all the way up at 100%. While you’re at it, go ahead and check which brush head you’re using with the eraser as well. This is unlikely to be a problem, but it’s possible if you’ve selected a corrupted brush. In GIMP version 2.10 and later, there’s now a Hardness option in the Eraser tool menu. Having it set at anything less than 100 will reduce the size of the space your eraser erases, so make sure you have it set to 100.Īnother reason why your eraser may not be erasing to transparency is because you have anti erase enabled in the tool settings. This will prevent the eraser from doing its job. With the eraser tool selected, navigate to the bottom left-hand side of your screen to the tool settings. At the very bottom of the list you should see Anti erase (Alt). If it is, that’s probably why your eraser isn’t working the way you expect. In the layers menu, just above the layers’ names, check to make sure you don’t have the Lock Pixels icon enabled. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |