Hi Alexander,
On 31/03/2020 15:51, Alexander Zuev wrote:
Hi Alexey,
please see my answers inline.
On 31-Mar-20 12:52, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
<SNIP>
- Can we try to re-implement the places where the old method
ShellFolder.getIcon(boolean)
was used, and change it to use the new public API, just to
confirm that our new code is a
a good replacement of the old/private api. I guess we could get
rid the boolean version.
It is outside of the initial scope of the request but yes - i can do
it. Should i do it within this fix or
should i create a new bug and do it there?
I think we should update implementation of
ShellFolder.getIcon(boolean) to use the new API. This way, we'll also
test the new API.
That would be a little bit backwards - i mean we are making a new API
that exposes the new method inside the ShellFolder class and now we
want to use it in the method within the ShellFolder itself? I would
prefer to avoid such circular dependensies and match the
implementation of ShellFolder.getIcon
to use same LOGIC as the new API so FileManager can enjoy the new icons.
Why not? Currently, we have API which returns either small or large
icon, 16px and 32px correspondingly. The new API can also return icons
of these sizes; in addition to that, it can provide icons of other sizes.
Well, I meant not ShellFolder which is an “abstract” “interface” but
Win32ShellFolder2 implementation.
- The current spec for SystemIcon.getSystemIcon() specify that the
icon will store the
"maximum quality icon" what does it meant?
It means that the maximum size of the icon allowed by the system
will be used. Right now on
Windows (and this issue is Windows specific) the maximum icon size
allowed is 256x256 pixels.
That is the size we will request and store in the
MultiResolutionImageIcon.
What if 256×256 icon is not available. Will it result in Windows
up-scaling the largest icon for us to 256×256 which we will
down-scale to the requested size?
Yes, actually - Windows does scale automatically icons of the
different sizes to the size requested by
user if such icon does not exist in the file's resources section.
This is why requesting 256×256 icon, if it does not exist, may result in
upscaling by Windows, then we'll downscale it. I don't think the result
would look good. But there's no way of knowing if the icon of the
requested size is already scaled or not.
As I read in your initial note, sizes below 24 are not down-scaled.
However, I think we should also make the exception for 32×32 icons
too: it's the standard icon size which is also somewhat optimised for
this size.
Well, i did some experiments and it would look almost identical as if
we request this icon from the system on
100% magnification but as soon as we start changing magnification it
starts showing the atrifacts of the
upscaling (especially when scale factor is not multiple of 100% - like
on 130% scaling it looks very bad).
Approach with asking system for 256x256 icon and allowing our UI to
scale it to exact physical resolution
looks almost the same at 100% magnification and looks way better on
anything else.
The size of 48×48 could also be an exception as many applications
provide this icon size since Windows XP era.
In general we should use the closest match to the requested size.
Unfortunately, Windows does not provide an easy-to-use API which can
give you the list of sizes available in the icon. Having the list, we
can dynamically request the closest match and cache it, and then up-
or down-scale it. This would also work well in High DPI environments
with multiple displays: a multi resolution image would have use the
right icon size. For example, 16×16 icon at 200% scale is 32×32, so
32×32 icon can be used avoiding scaling up the small icon; or 32×32
icon at 150% scale is 48×48, this icon size is is also often
available directly.
The problem is that sometimes 16x16 icon looks DIFFERENT from the
32x32 icon, you can look for it here
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kizune/8182043/new.png
Notice that on the top panel the first icon (size 16 folsed icon)
looks different.
Yes. Icon is essentially a multi resolution image. If you take a look at
how Windows behaves in HiDPI environment, you'll see that at 200%
scaling it displays 32×32 icon in File Explorer list view which uses
16×16 icon in 100% scaling. We should do the same. If the requested size
is 16×16 but we're rendering at 200%, we should use 32×32 icon if it's
available rather than scaling up the 16×16 icon.
It took a screenshot of Notepad.exe in File Explorer and in JFileChooser:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aivanov/8182043/notepad-100.png
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aivanov/8182043/notepad-200.png
The top image in either image is from File Explorer, the bottom one is
from JFileChooser. In either case, the icons are identical; yet the
icons look differently in 100% and 200%. The icon in case of 200% is not
scaled up from 16×16 but rather the real 32×32 icon.
I don't quite understand how it's achieved now in JFileChooser. It could
be Windows draws a larger icon in HiDPI environment.
And that's why i made exception for the small icons - they sometimes
are especially crafted by the
application authors and if we add upscaling/downscaling the file
manager (for example) will show
application icon differently in the same view on different displays
due to the different magnification factor.
And scaling 256x256 icon for scaling factors such as 130% or 145%
looks MUCH better than scaling closest
resolution icon to the exact size (yes, Windows 10 allows custom
scaling factors to be applied). So i still
think that keeping the maximum quality icon and scaling it down is a
prefered way for all icons 32px or more.
Okay as long as it looks good. However, I'm still for using the icon
provided in the app resources if the requested size matches the
available size, but I don't really know how to achieve it.
--
Regards,
Alexey
<SNIP>
