Open main menu


APNG format and alternatives?Edit

I would like to create an animation of ~20 or so different leaf morphisms of Metrosideros polymorpha. I was originally planning on doing this as a ~400x320 px APNG and while this would work well on many browsers at the original resolution, it would never work on browsers like IE or Safari nor at different resolutions. One option would be to do it as a animated GIF but the quality would suffer due to the bitdepth restrictions. Another option would be to string them together into an Ogg, but that would mean that user would need to start the animation and would then have to wait for it to buffer. Does anyone have any suggestions for the best way to display a loop of ~ 20 frames that requires a high bitdepth? (I also asked this question at wp:en. Thanks for any suggestions, A13ean (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Make versions in APNG, OGV and animated GIF; where the APNG is used link to the OGV and GIF versions in the image caption (or use the OGV and link the others). That's similar to what I did for this OGV video in Rings of Saturn. -84user (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like the most reasonable way to do it at the moment. Thanks, A13ean (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Web 2.0 MapEdit

I think this interactive SVG could be recreated using classes rather than applying the same style manually to elements over and over using the same CSS style. This would simplify editing as well as reduce file size. Call me "The Doctahedron". 22:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Did a quick semi-optimization (not classes, however)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Topographic map of Zanzibar-no.svgEdit

Could someone take a look at this? I don't know what I did wrong. On the first upload I edited the file by hand using a text editor, but when it showed up blank I tried to edit it with Inkscape instead. It shows fine in SVG, but the PNG is missing the map (as you can clearly see). Is it a problem with the renderer? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jon Harald Søby, I have juste cleaned up the file (File → Vacuum Defs) and cropped useless area (outside the page). It seems good now. Sémhur (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


Does anyone know why the following image has green rectangles on it, if the full version doesn't?


Is it possible to fix this? Helder 21:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the same old Inkscape "flowtext" nonsense (though it usually manifests itself as black rectangles). Can be diagnosed at Commons:SVG Check... AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

default rendering from SVG-to-png looks buggy (also improper default flag-sizes, IMHO)Edit

May I know who is responsible for the default chosen sizes of the SVG-flags in wikipedia? See the comment of User:Rillke in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Need urgent help. There are severe rendering problems from SVG to png for the default chosen flag-sizes. See e.g. File:Flag_of_Iran.svg. Achim1999 (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not too sure what you mean -- "default" SVG dimensions only come into play when the height and/or width of an SVG image is not fully specified, and are usually an arbitrarily chosen 256 or 512. If you fully specify the size, then the size is whatever you've specified. Of course, as displayed on the image description page, the generated PNG (not the underlying SVG) is scaled to fit within 800x600 box (or a 1024x768 box etc., if you specify something else in your Wikimedia Commons account preferences). AnonMoos (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
If you upload a new SVG-file, a "File:*.svg"-page is create for this object to get control of it. This consists of 4 parts: A header (including a template), an image of a certain preview-size of this SVG-file, 2 or 3 other links to png-images, some gimicks (Language selection and ADD NOTE), a short fixed description of the SVG-file, and 4 more links to png sizes of this image, and only then follows the user-changable description of the file. These png-images which the user can't control are always there (including the first one which displays the SVG image). These all have typically others sizes then the given height and width of the uploaded SVG-file. E.g. so looks this 2nd part for "File:Flag of Iran.svg":

800 × 457 pixels. Other resolutions: 320 × 183 pixels | 640 × 366 pixels | 1,024 × 585 pixels.
Language select:
Help about image annotations
Full resolution ‎(SVG file, nominally 1,575 × 900 pixels, file size: 2 KB); (request rotation)
This image rendered as PNG in other sizes: 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px.

These sizes 800 × 457 pixels, 320 × 183 pixels, 640 × 366, 1,024 × 585 together with the sizes: 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px I call the default sizes which wikimedia decide to generate, because they are out of control by the user!
Moreover there are templates which also define their default sizes. thumb|... or the info-box-template when displaying flags of a country e.t.c. I don't know their default sizes, but these on the description page I call improper because the first set don't take care of the possible design of the image, but only on historic sizes of monitor resolutions, and those 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px are even more thoughtless chosen. The reason seems to be that some people like numbers which are multiples of 100 or 1000! :-( Achim1999 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how the "other resolutions" are chosen, but these (and also the 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px links) are not of very great significance, and are provided purely as a convenience to image reusers, to enable them to see which of a variety of sizes may meet their needs without the bother of opening an edit window and coding an image tag and/or editing the the image thumbnail address in their browser URL bar. 2000px is often the largest thumbnail which the software will render, while the others are purely arbitrary, as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
To avoid to explain all once again, I like to give you a pointer to File_talk:Flag_of_Iran.svg#general comments and hope you can make your own convinent conclusions. That you don't know a significance doesn't mean that there is no. :) And more, I guess(!) that "your insignificance" of these arbitrary default sizes will have also led to reversion-wars in the past!
Furthermore I wonder what crude software you are thinking which set limits to 2000px (I know some software which limitation of 4096 and 2047 pixels).
Finally: my main statement "the default rendering looks buggy" seems to be of minor interest for wikimedia! :-( Achim1999 (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- they're arbitrary convenience links for file re-users, and nothing more. The "other resolutions" links appear on many JPEG images also, and so obviously have no inherent connection with SVG. I'm not sure if the limit is still enforced, but in the past, if you requested that an SVG be rendered into a PNG wider than 2,000 pixels, you got a 2,000-pixel wide rendering... AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, my guy -- Is noone interested in, or responsible for, or open to talk about, or willing to change these arbitrary improper chosen image-sizes on the SVG-description page? :-( Achim1999 (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
If you really want to pursue this matter, then you need to file a bug report in the "Bugzilla" system, but don't be surprised if no one there takes it very seriously... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The question is: What do you mean with "this matter"? That this rendering can be improved is trivally shown by certain examples. And I wonder why people shouldn't take this seriously there at bugzilla? I did also correspond with software-developpers and almost always (or even always?) they were not unhappy to hear a new bug and react promptly. Thus I wonder about your attitude -- the explanation could be: it is the wrong place. Default flag-sizes and SVG-to-png rendering sounds also a responsibility of wikimedia. Perhaps(?) mainly (the first for sure!) of them. And then I would be ignored at bugzilla. :-(

I still get not called user/admin-names, WHO is responsibile here on wikimedia HOW SVG-files are rendered to chosen png-sizes -- this is not bugzilla-responsibility. This is rather suspicious, IMHO. Achim1999 (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- there may not be a central "SVG decider" (I don't know whether there is or not), but the people who can change the way the Wikimedia software deals with SVG are the Wikimedia developers, and to contact them you can either file a bug report at Bugzilla, or try to send a message to their mailing list. I don't know anything about the mailing list, but Bugzilla is linked from Commons:Community portal which is linked from just about every single page on this site... AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Then this looks like the right place: Achim1999 (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Achim1999