PDA

View Full Version : Firefox 3.5.1 available


Nortelbert
17th of July 2009 (Fri), 22:11
What’s New in Firefox 3.5.1

Firefox 3.5.1 fixes the following issues:

* Several security issues.
* Several stability issues.
* An issue that was making Firefox take a long time to load on some Windows systems.

Please see the complete list of changes in this version. You may also be interested in the Firefox 3.5 release notes for a list of changes in the previous version.

René Damkot
18th of July 2009 (Sat), 08:51
Yep, and because it was a quick fix for some security issues, the color management bug still isn't fixed (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497363).

Souwalker
20th of July 2009 (Mon), 00:02
For the life of me, I can't find the instructions to turn on Colour management in FF3.0.

Rgds
Pat

René Damkot
20th of July 2009 (Mon), 10:03
Type about:config in the address bar,
Promise to be careful,
type gfx in the bar below,
set gfx.color_management.mode to true.

http://img.skitch.com/20090720-8xamptre61ddnpee1i1cdpwc92.jpg

I used the add on (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6891), which is easier. If you use the method above, it will say "gfx.color_management.mode "user set" instead of "default" after setting it to "true"

FF 3.5 can be set to "1" (fully color managed) or "2" (only color managed for tagged images). In both cases "0" means "no color management.

cdifoto
20th of July 2009 (Mon), 10:08
I uninstalled 3.5 because it's useless without color management, at least to me.

René Damkot
20th of July 2009 (Mon), 11:17
I uninstalled 3.5 because it's useless without color management, at least to me.

What do you mean "without color management"? It does have color management (with a few limitations)

cdifoto
20th of July 2009 (Mon), 11:22
What do you mean "without color management"? It does have color management (with a few limitations)
When I installed it, it wasn't working. 3.0.11 works fine.

René Damkot
20th of July 2009 (Mon), 16:05
What kind of monitor profile?
How did you test whether it was working?

I had problems with it, and that turned out to be caused by the monitor profile which was LUT based.
So FF 3.5 ignored the monitor profile. It did however convert images with embedded profile...

Souwalker
20th of July 2009 (Mon), 19:19
I thought FF3.5 had a colour management bug and is still not resolved?
Rgds

Souwalker
20th of July 2009 (Mon), 19:20
Type about:config in the address bar,
Promise to be careful,
type gfx in the bar below,
set gfx.color_management.mode to true.

http://img.skitch.com/20090720-8xamptre61ddnpee1i1cdpwc92.jpg

I used the add on (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6891), which is easier. If you use the method above, it will say "gfx.color_management.mode "user set" instead of "default" after setting it to "true"

FF 3.5 can be set to "1" (fully color managed) or "2" (only color managed for tagged images). In both cases "0" means "no color management.

Thanks Rene.

René Damkot
21st of July 2009 (Tue), 04:57
I thought FF3.5 had a colour management bug and is still not resolved?

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497363

Souwalker
24th of July 2009 (Fri), 18:13
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497363

Rene

So if I install FF3.5 now, colour management is 'on' by default?

Rgds

René Damkot
24th of July 2009 (Fri), 18:35
Yes. It always has been "on" by default for 3.5. But not "full" color management, like 3.0.11 had (when enabled).
By default FF 3.5.1 will only color manage images with embedded profiles. (So you'll get Wonkyness (http://www.smugmug.com/help/safari/safari.html)).

I'd recommend setting it to "1", so it fully color manages.

Also, let's hope they fix the bug soon, and add V4 profile support...

drisley
26th of July 2009 (Sun), 18:33
I thought FF3.5 had a colour management bug and is still not resolved?
Rgds

Is this the bug?!

http://www.mts.net/%7Elftbrain/firefox3.5.jpg

drisley
26th of July 2009 (Sun), 18:34
Diregard my post. I discovered I didn't have my colour profile for the system installed yet.:rolleyes:

Faolan
31st of July 2009 (Fri), 02:01
Firefox was rushed out of the door, and it shows with the problems it's having.

Also security should have been fixed before it was released. Overall I'm not impressed with the recent QC of Firefox. I've had more issues with 3.5 than any previous version of Firefox, including weird unexplained crashes.

cdifoto
10th of August 2009 (Mon), 08:48
Firefox was rushed out of the door, and it shows with the problems it's having.

Also security should have been fixed before it was released. Overall I'm not impressed with the recent QC of Firefox. I've had more issues with 3.5 than any previous version of Firefox, including weird unexplained crashes.
I'm getting a lot of crashes with 3.0.13 as well. Disappointing considering the first release or two of 3.0 was/were quite good.

drisley
10th of August 2009 (Mon), 10:05
I had problems with FF 3.0, but find that 3.5 is actually better.

Moppie
10th of August 2009 (Mon), 19:35
I'm getting a lot of crashes with 3.0.13 as well.



Ditto.
I'm finding it to be a big fat slow pig.
I've been using IE8 at work, and am very, very tempted to start using it at home as well.

drisley
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 06:05
Why not try FF 3.5?

Moppie
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 06:17
Why not try FF 3.5?


Its Beta only?

How much better is it?
Any objective proof?

hollis_f
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 06:39
Its Beta only?
Nope.

How much better is it?
Any objective proof?

Why not decide for yourself, as suggested? Nobody knows what makes a good browser better than the user.

Moppie
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 07:07
Will it run seperatly from 3.0 or simply instal over the top?

drisley
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 07:24
I think 3.5 installs over top because it's now the official release of Firefox.

Faolan
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 07:47
It does, it's the direct replacement for the 3 branch of browsers, so back up your settings before you install it (and want to roll back).

Overall there is some nice changes but as I said previously stability on XP/Vista x64 is worse plus I'm noticing Gamma differences in images (ie they're brighter).

René Damkot
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 07:52
Overall there is some nice changes but as I said previously stability on XP/Vista x64 is worse plus I'm noticing Gamma differences in images (ie they're brighter).

FF 3.5, unlike 3.0 is color managed by default
FF 3.5 doesn't fully color manage by default however, more "Safari like".
FF 3.5 still doesn't play nice with LUT based monitor profiles (at least: mine)

Faolan
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 08:00
I've played both with colour managed Flash presentations and also RGB embedded (sRGB/Adobe RGB) and they all show the gamma to be wrong. The gamma is reading around 1/4-1/3 stop brighter. This is on CRT and LCD panels, both colour managed and non-colour managed.

It's a pain in the proverbial and to be honest I'm going to ignore FF behaviour if it can't comply to other browsers.

Tareq
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 08:21
Firefox 3.5.2 here ;-)

anthonyi
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 08:41
Firefox 3.5.2 here ;-)

Just installed it and, as usual, upgrading broke a bunch of add-ons I use. I really wish they'd figure out a way to let your add-ons carry over from the previous version...

Tareq
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 10:31
Just installed it and, as usual, upgrading broke a bunch of add-ons I use. I really wish they'd figure out a way to let your add-ons carry over from the previous version...

I am using a new Mac Mini [bought yesterday] as my MacBook Pro is not working, so in all cases i am going to add those add-ons again ;)

René Damkot
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 12:25
and non-colour managed.
Excuse me?

Are you saying *non* color managed FF3.5.2 displays the images different then other non color managed software? :confused:

Faolan
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 12:50
I notice distinct differences in Firefox from other browsers, on calibrated and non-calibrated displays. The images are noticeably brighter, I've noticed this when working on a new site that an image with the sRGB colour space embedded is displayed totally different from any other browser with colour management on or off, or even Photoshop!

I noticed signs of clipping in shadow areas of a image hence why I decided to look into it further, and that's when I started to see the state of play and how bad the implementation is.

drisley
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 13:11
I'm not noticing any differences on my calibrated 8 bit S-IPS Panel using Windows 7 x64 and Firefox 3.5.2

I have a window open side by side of an sRGB image in Photoshop CS4 and Firefox 3.5.2 and they are identical.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9256/51136044.jpg

René Damkot
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 13:13
Ah. That's what you meant...

Compared to what browsers? What differences?
What color management setting in FF 3.5.2? What display profile?

There are some differences between FF3.0 (or a correct working 3.5) and Safari and PS, but they are pretty subtle.

FF3.5 color manages different from either Safari or FF 3.0, depending on setting.
If you set nothing, FF3.5 will color manage like Safari.
If you set gfx.color_management.mode=1, it'll display like FF3.0 with CM enabled.

There might be small differences, but they will *not* be visible without overlaying screenshots in Photoshop (I tried ;))

If there are big differences, something else is going on...

Here's two blog posts I wrote on FF 3.5: Link (http://www.getcolormanaged.com/tag/firefox/)

drisley
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 13:33
Here's two blog posts I wrote on FF 3.5: Link (http://www.getcolormanaged.com/tag/firefox/)

Wow, that's quite a great write-up!

Faolan
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 13:48
I've attached an small crop on one of the affected areas, you can see clearly that their is serious issues when Firefox is handling the image (left) compared to Photoshop (right). I have tried different colour management options and eventually decided to switch it off altogether. This screen grab is with the setting you recommended René (gfx.color_management.mode=1).

What it doesn't show is the brightness difference between the two images. The version of Firefox is 3.5.2.

René Damkot
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 14:02
I've attached an small crop on one of the affected areas, you can see clearly that their is serious issues when Firefox is handling the image (left) compared to Photoshop (right).
Yep, that's plainly visible. I'd file a bug report.

What it doesn't show is the brightness difference between the two images.

That's weird. If you made the screenshot the same way (how?), the image should display the same (apart from the obvious "artifacts")

Same data sent to the display (or screenshot) = identical display.

I cannot fathom how the display brightness would be different for FF 3.5 then for PS.

How did you take the screenshots? What OS? (OSX embeds the monitor profile in the screenshot).
Did the screenshots appear identical to the screen they shot when opened in PS? (With the proper monitor profile either embedded or assigned in PS)

Faolan
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 14:38
Standard Windows Print Screen into Photoshop, I'm using a dual display attached to a Radeon card. I run a LCD and a CRT monitor on this rig (dual monitor), but both show the same problem though the CRT to a lesser degree.

To be honest this is a minor issue to me as my main browser is Opera, but I have to use Firefox to test pages.

basroil
11th of August 2009 (Tue), 14:51
I'm not noticing any differences on my calibrated 8 bit S-IPS Panel using Windows 7 x64 and Firefox 3.5.2

I have a window open side by side of an sRGB image in Photoshop CS4 and Firefox 3.5.2 and they are identical.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9256/51136044.jpg

I can see some differences between the two, especially when it comes to brightness. The difference is under 1/3rd stop though, so pretty good overall.



I cannot fathom how the display brightness would be different for FF 3.5 then for PS.


Neither can I, but it happens. Was much worse in 3.5.1, but almost negligible in 3.5.2 (using an 8bit VA screen with a very large gamut)

drisley
12th of August 2009 (Wed), 11:01
I can see some differences between the two, especially when it comes to brightness. The difference is under 1/3rd stop though, so pretty good overall.


There is no difference. How do I know? I cropped them and put one of them over other in photoshop and used the "Difference" layer mode, and they were identical.

Placebo effect I guess.

René Damkot
12th of August 2009 (Wed), 11:48
Might be related to the monitor profile you're using: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509710

basroil
12th of August 2009 (Wed), 11:52
There is no difference. How do I know? I cropped them and put one of them over other in photoshop and used the "Difference" layer mode, and they were identical.

Placebo effect I guess.

Odd, in the dark spot in the snow, getting L46A14B5 on the left image but only L45A14B5 on the right one, using 31x31 pixel average...

drisley
12th of August 2009 (Wed), 14:25
Dunno, maybe you missed the exact spot. With the higher res images, there is no difference according to Photoshop. But Faolan here is saying FF is producing images brighter than it should, so in your example, it sounds like FF (right) is producing a darker tone (I believe, because I'm not sure what those numbers mean).

Either way I'm not seeing any difference worth noting on any of my images.

Rene, I'm using a S-IPS 8-bit monitor, hardware profiled with Spyder 2 Pro.

drisley
12th of August 2009 (Wed), 14:32
Just for kicks, I used the web size capture, opened in PS CS4, zoomed to 400% to make placement of color samplers identical, used 31x31 and got identical amounts for both images, 135,96,99 RGB.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6419/capturezrw.jpg

However, this is moot since using a Difference layer would show any differences anyway.

Oh well, I have read that FF3.5 does have some fine tuning need with it's colour management, so hopefully that will be fixed soon. But it's still better than a non-colour managed browser I would say.
I'm more concerned with performance, as having colour mangement enabled can slow FF down quite a bit with large/many images in multiple tabs . Perhaps it's time to upgrade form a dual-core athlon to quad-core i7? :)

basroil
12th of August 2009 (Wed), 15:22
I'm more concerned with performance, as having colour mangement enabled can slow FF down quite a bit with large/many images in multiple tabs . Perhaps it's time to upgrade form a dual-core athlon to quad-core i7? :)

Currently have 80 tabs in two windows open on firefox 3.5 with my i7 system, and other than taking forever to reload when I switch to and from privacy mode (more due to network considerations than machine speed), works like a charm ;)

Souwalker
17th of March 2010 (Wed), 04:33
If version 3 the only version with colour management?

I was on v3.0 and my wife installed v3.6 and I understand this latest version is not colour managed.

Where can I go to get v3.0 back?

Many Thanks
Pat

René Damkot
17th of March 2010 (Wed), 12:51
3.0 had full color management, but it was turned off by default.
3.5 had color management for tagged images by default, full or no color management if set so. I'd expect 3.6 to be like 3.5...

Souwalker
17th of March 2010 (Wed), 18:12
3.0 had full color management, but it was turned off by default.
3.5 had color management for tagged images by default, full or no color management if set so. I'd expect 3.6 to be like 3.5...

So I need to turn colour management on manually for v3.6?

Rgds

René Damkot
18th of March 2010 (Thu), 12:52
Depends: By default it's on, but untagged images (and css colors) will be assumed to be in your monitors color space. Safari does the same.
If you want "full" color management (everything that's untagged is assumed to be sRGB, which makes a lot more sense IMO): Yes. You need to set that.