When displaying images naively, you may end up losing image quality because of a relatively unknown phenomena. If you happen to display an image with a dimension that is one pixel off the real image dimension, the resizing operation (which is costly in the browser) is going to be the equivalent of a blur. See the following example:

130x130 129x129

When you look at it from an external perspective, it seems to be very intentional to display and image with a dimension that is one pixel off. However it can happen for many reasons, some are bugs and some are legitimate.

Grid Sizes

Let's say the content area where you want to display a 4-columns image grid has a width of 500 pixels. And you want to have the same padding in the edges as in-between the images.

\[4 * image{ }width + 5 * padding = 500\]\[image{ }width = \frac{(500 - 5 * padding)}{4}\]

The only padding value between 2px and 8px that give an integer number for the image width are 4px and 8px. But unfortunately, none of them look good, you really want 6px padding.

120x120 and 4px padding.

115x115 and 8px padding.

In this case, you want to cheat and don't have all the same width and padding but make some of them 1 pixel smaller.

You can for example say that edges will have 5 pixel and inside 6 pixels. However this is a bad idea because it is going to be visually visible. By changing from 5 to 6 you are doing a variation of 17%.

\[5 + 118 + 6 + 118 + 6 + 118 + 6 + 118 + 5 = 500\]

118x118 and 5px padding on the sides, 6px padding in-between.

Instead you want to borrow a pixel from the images. Having two with 127px width and two with 128px width. The difference is not visible by the eye.

\[6 + 117 + 6 + 118 + 6 + 117 + 6 + 118 + 6 = 500\]

117x118 and 118x118 alternated and 6px padding.

So now we are in a situation where we want to display an image with 1 less pixel. In order to do that without bluring the image, the trick is to use a container with the size you want to display with overflow: hidden; and inside the properly sized image.

<div style="overflow: hidden; width: 129px; height: 129px;">
  <img src="130x130.png" width="130" height="130" />
130x130 129x129

Chrome bug

Being one pixel off is really easy, the main cause is different rounding. One one part of the code you use round() and in another part you use floor(). If the number is decimal, you have half chances to get a wrong result. For example, there is currently a bug in Chrome where hardware accelerated rendering has similar issue.

In order to get good scrolling performance, we enable hardware acceleration using transform: translateZ(0); on all the visible images on the viewport. However, when we mouse over an image, we display some overlay and therefore decide to remove hardware acceleration for it to avoid thrashing GPU memory.

To display images, we use a container as described above with the CSS property left: -7.92%; to position the image properly in the viewport. The result is that the image is moving around when you mouse hover it on Chrome. There is probably a different rounding applied between the CPU and the GPU code. The net effect is the image being resized by one pixel and blurry by default. When you mouse over, the image has the correct size.

In order to fix the issue, we can use integer number in pixel left: -24px; instead. This way the browser doesn't have to round anything.

This is only one of the many similar issues with the browsers handling rounding differently. People implementing fluid layout suffer a lot because of browser inconsistencies. If this is happening in browser implementations, there is also a high probability that this issue is going to appear in your own code if you didn't make sure it was rounding as expected.


This problem is very common and comes from many different sources, but always because of the same root cause: rounding issues. Since sub-pixel rendering is not widely implemented, it is not going to disappear. I hope that you are now aware of it and will address it to avoid affecting image quality of your thumbnails 🙂

If you liked this article, you might be interested in my Twitter feed as well.

Related Posts

  • July 8, 2012 Image Layout Algorithm – Lightbox (1)
    Layout Algorithms: Facebook | Google Plus | Lightbox | Lightbox Android | 500px Lightbox.com has a really interesting image layout algorithm. We're going to see how it works and its best use case. How does it work? Column based The algorithm is column based. You pick a […]
  • August 13, 2012 Image Layout Algorithm – Facebook (1)
    Layout Algorithms: Facebook | Google Plus | Lightbox | Lightbox Android | 500px For the redesign of the Photo Section of Facebook we wanted to highlight some photos by making them bigger. It all started with the following mock by Andy Chung: Layout Alternated Blocks My […]
  • October 1, 2012 CSS – Semi-transparent Border on Images (7)
    With the new Facebook image gallery redesign, images are displayed using white padding as separation. It works well most of the time but fails for images with a light background. To get around it, a 1px semi-transparent border is applied inside the image. This way it doesn't affect […]
  • September 14, 2011 CSS – One Line Justify (27)
    I came across a CSS problem, text-align: justify does not work with only one line. Justify behavior The reason is because it has been designed with paragraphs in mind. It justifies all the lines but the last one. Normal Justify Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur […]
  • July 7, 2012 CSS – Understanding Percentage Background Position (9)
    In this article, I'm going to guide you through a concrete problem I had to solve. Eventually, we'll see how to use percentage values in the background-position CSS property and how it solves a lot of tough issues. Usual way Positioning the image The usual way to position images […]