Re: [PATCH] Don't show frames around images with an alpha plane

[Mark <markg85 gmail com>]

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 <markg85 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 <jaap haitsma org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:13, Mark <markg85 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 <jaap 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 <jaap 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>