In my opinion 2 looks better than 1. That exactly the reason why I implemented the patch. Especially when you would place the png with the dices on the desktop (with a non white background) putting a frame makes it look very ugly.
Jaap On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 16:40, Mark <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now i patched my nautilus with your 2 patches: > - No scaling of small images > - No frames on images with alpha > > And i made a few screenshots of it > 1. http://img2.imagedash.com/m5ad.png -- Frame everything > 2. http://img2.imagedash.com/2WLn.png -- No frames on images with alpha > > And 2 other images that show where it does look good (only if ALL > images have alpha) > 3. http://img.imagedash.com/hrvF.png -- Images with alpha and no frames > 4. http://img2.imagedash.com/Eu3o.png -- Images with alpha and with frames > > Now to me image (1) looks good and image (3) looks good. However that > combination is currently not possible. You currently can only get (3) > by having (2) for mixed folders (png, jpeg etc...). > Now my idea would be to count the images in a folder that have > transparency. If there is just one image that doesn't have > transparency then frame all images otherwise don't frame them. > > And that idea is probably not going to be in so in that case i would > say keep it the way (1) looks and NOT (2)! since that looks really > ugly to me. > > O and a side note. I think there should be fixed frames where an image > is just in the center of the center (horizontal and vertical) that way > you fame every image and it looks very ordered. Something like this: > http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/images/plugins/gallery1.png > or this: http://www.gratissoftware.nu/images2/gallery-1.jpg > or this: > http://www.ndesign-studio.com/images/portfolio/web/bestwebgallery-1.jpg > > ... enough examples to look at :) > > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Mark <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Just so i get it. >> Would this image (with your patch) be without a border or with: >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/PNG_transparency_demonstration_1.png >> Because i think it would be without and that would certainly make the >> icon view look like a mess. >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Jaap A. Haitsma <j...@haitsma.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:13, Mark <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Oh, just noticed your confusing me. you have actually patches for both >>>> issues. >>> >>> Sorry for confusing you I thought my email was pretty clear. >>> The first patch for small images was already committed. >>> >>>> In that case. i agree on the patch that fixes the the small images >>>> getting scaled but i don't agree on no frame for images with alpha. >>>> Just imagine a image with just one transparent pixel somewhere.. would >>>> that suddenly be without a frame? would look odd i think. Specially in >>>> a big folder with jpeg and png images. >>> >>> The patch just checks if there is an alpha plane. JPEG images don't >>> have an alpha plane so they will get framed. With PNGs an alpha plane >>> is an option. The use case you are referring to can be constructed >>> but it seems unlikely to happen in practice. The use case that you >>> have some larger sized PNGs with an alpha plane that get incorrectly >>> framed occurs much more often. >>> >>> So I still think this patch should be applied >>> >>> Jaap >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Jaap A. Haitsma <j...@haitsma.org> wrote: >>>>> Very small patch that doesn't show a frame around images with an alpha >>>>> plane which makes the images look a lot better >>>>> >>>>> It's actually a modification of this patch which I committed a wile ago >>>>> >>>>> commit 2a94803b44010e3c47a9f7b94894fab8d6062abc >>>>> Author: Jaap A. Haitsma <j...@haitsma.org> >>>>> Date: Sat Jul 18 20:45:05 2009 +0200 >>>>> >>>>> Fix handling of small images/icons >>>>> >>>>> Small images with an alpha plane don't get a frame >>>>> Use different scaling strategy for small images. Small images/icons >>>>> won't get up scaled in default zoom view. They are shown in their >>>>> actual >>>>> Fixes bug #585186 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can I commit the attached patch? >>>>> >>>>> Jaap >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> nautilus-list mailing list >>>>> nautilus-list@gnome.org >>>>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- nautilus-list mailing list nautilus-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
