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

[Jaap A. Haitsma]

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@...>
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

[0001-Don-t-show-frames-around-images-with-alpha-plane.patch]

---

From bd97abd6133b8400493611052ccb0d0f83b35848 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jaap A. Haitsma <jaap@...>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:34:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Don't show frames around images with alpha plane

---
 libnautilus-private/nautilus-file.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/libnautilus-private/nautilus-file.c b/libnautilus-private/nautilus-file.c
index cfe5c5b..84d99ac 100644
--- a/libnautilus-private/nautilus-file.c
+++ b/libnautilus-private/nautilus-file.c
@@ -4165,8 +4165,8 @@ nautilus_file_get_icon (NautilusFile *file,
  w * scale, h * scale,
  GDK_INTERP_BILINEAR);
 
- /* We don't want frames around small icons */
- if (!gdk_pixbuf_get_has_alpha(raw_pixbuf) || s >= 128) {
+ /* We don't want frames around images with an alpha plane */
+ if (!gdk_pixbuf_get_has_alpha(raw_pixbuf)) {
  nautilus_thumbnail_frame_image (&scaled_pixbuf);
  }
  g_object_unref (raw_pixbuf);
--
1.6.3.3

---

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

For your patch. You claim it fixes #585186 but i have a hard time
believing that. That bug report is talking about small images getting
upscaled. And in your patch:
(one liner)
if (!gdk_pixbuf_get_has_alpha(raw_pixbuf)) {

that doesn't fix the small images getting upscaled. That's only not
framing images with alpha and i disagree on having no frame on them.
I could be wrong and completely missing the nail here but just looking
at the gdk_pixbuf_get_has_alpha description that function alone should
not be able to fix #585186

btw. i'm not a nautilus maintainer (just a user).

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Jaap A. Haitsma <jaap@...> 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@...>
> 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@...
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
>

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

Oh, just noticed your confusing me. you have actually patches for both issues.

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.

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Jaap A. Haitsma <jaap@...> 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@...>
> 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@...
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
>

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Jaap A. Haitsma]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:13, Mark <markg85@...> 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@...> 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@...>
>> 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@...
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
>>
>

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Gilles Dartiguelongue-4]

Le vendredi 11 septembre 2009 à 18:46 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma a écrit :

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:13, Mark <markg85@...> 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.

Having some thumbnails with frames and some other not is just confusing
for users:

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338632

--
Gilles Dartiguelongue <gilles.dartiguelongue@...>


--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

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@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:13, Mark <markg85@...> 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@...> 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@...>
>>> 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@...
>>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
>>>
>>
>

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

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@...> 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@...> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:13, Mark <markg85@...> 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@...> 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@...>
>>>> 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@...
>>>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Jaap A. Haitsma]

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 <markg85@...> 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 <markg85@...> 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@...> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:13, Mark <markg85@...> 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@...> 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@...>
>>>>> 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@...
>>>>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

Now you know my opinion and i know yours. both are quite the opposite
of each other so perhaps it's time for some others to step in and let
there opinion be known in this case.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Jaap A. Haitsma <jaap@...> wrote:

> 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 <markg85@...> 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 <markg85@...> 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@...> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:13, Mark <markg85@...> 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@...> 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@...>
>>>>>> 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@...
>>>>>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Alexander Larsson]

On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 21:46 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma 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@...>
> 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?

I don't think the patch does what this says, does it?
It  only touched whether the image is framed or not, and it seems to
change that in another way than the above says.

However, I agree on the alpha handling. Frameing something that is
transparent just look weird. If you e.g. set a background other than
white the "inside" of the frame will look very weird, like putting a
transparency slide in a frame.

We're past the hard code freeze though, so maybe its a bit late to
change this.


--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Joshua Judson Rosen-2]

Alexander Larsson <alexl@...> writes:

>
> On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 21:46 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma 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@...>
> > 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?
>
> I don't think the patch does what this says, does it?
> It  only touched whether the image is framed or not, and it seems to
> change that in another way than the above says.
>
> However, I agree on the alpha handling. Frameing something that is
> transparent just look weird. If you e.g. set a background other than
> white the "inside" of the frame will look very weird, like putting a
> transparency slide in a frame.

I've always found the `use the image as its own icon IFF it has a
transparent background' behaviour confusing: I can't tell if something
is an image and I'm seeing a thumbnail, or if I'm seeing an icon
that's been set for the file. If it's the latter case, then I have no
indication what the image *in* the file actually is until I open the
file; I may not even have an indication of *what kind of file* it is
until I try opening it, at which point I'll find that it's an
image-file.

I thought that the whole point of thumbnails was that I didn't have to
try opening a file to determine what it looks like (or even what kind
of file it is--whether it's even an image at all...).

Of course, the version of Nautilus that I've been running (in Debian
stable) is from before 2.21 and has this problem :(.

I didn't even know that the confusing inconsistency in
thumbnail-decoration had been fixed upstream!

I guess this is very late, but big "thank you" for fixing it!

--
Don't be afraid to ask (Lf.((Lx.xx) (Lr.f(rr)))).

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Jaap A. Haitsma]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:02, Alexander Larsson <alexl@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 21:46 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma 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@...>
>> 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?
>
> I don't think the patch does what this says, does it?
> It  only touched whether the image is framed or not, and it seems to
> change that in another way than the above says.

Seems that I'm confusing people here. The attached patch makes sure
that if an image has an alpha plane it will not put a frame.


> However, I agree on the alpha handling. Frameing something that is
> transparent just look weird. If you e.g. set a background other than
> white the "inside" of the frame will look very weird, like putting a
> transparency slide in a frame.
>
> We're past the hard code freeze though, so maybe its a bit late to
> change this.

The risk of a regression with this patch is 0. Can't we ask for a code
freeze break?

Jaap
--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Alexander Larsson]

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 18:39 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:02, Alexander Larsson <alexl@...> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 21:46 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma 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@...>
> >> 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?
> >
> > I don't think the patch does what this says, does it?
> > It  only touched whether the image is framed or not, and it seems to
> > change that in another way than the above says.
>
> Seems that I'm confusing people here. The attached patch makes sure
> that if an image has an alpha plane it will not put a frame.

Well, the commit message also says its changes the scaling strategy.

>
> > However, I agree on the alpha handling. Frameing something that is
> > transparent just look weird. If you e.g. set a background other than
> > white the "inside" of the frame will look very weird, like putting a
> > transparency slide in a frame.
> >
> > We're past the hard code freeze though, so maybe its a bit late to
> > change this.
>
> The risk of a regression with this patch is 0. Can't we ask for a code
> freeze break?

Sure, can you do that?


--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Jaap A. Haitsma]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 19:51, Alexander Larsson <alexl@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 18:39 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:02, Alexander Larsson <alexl@...> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 21:46 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma 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@...>
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> > I don't think the patch does what this says, does it?
>> > It  only touched whether the image is framed or not, and it seems to
>> > change that in another way than the above says.
>>
>> Seems that I'm confusing people here. The attached patch makes sure
>> that if an image has an alpha plane it will not put a frame.
>
> Well, the commit message also says its changes the scaling strategy.

That's where I confused everybody I guess. That commit is already in
GNOME git since the 18th of July

>
>>
>> > However, I agree on the alpha handling. Frameing something that is
>> > transparent just look weird. If you e.g. set a background other than
>> > white the "inside" of the frame will look very weird, like putting a
>> > transparency slide in a frame.
>> >
>> > We're past the hard code freeze though, so maybe its a bit late to
>> > change this.
>>
>> The risk of a regression with this patch is 0. Can't we ask for a code
>> freeze break?
>
> Sure, can you do that?
>

Will do

Jaap
--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Jaap A. Haitsma <jaap@...> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 19:51, Alexander Larsson <alexl@...> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 18:39 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:02, Alexander Larsson <alexl@...> wrote:
>>> > On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 21:46 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma 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@...>
>>> >> 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?
>>> >
>>> > I don't think the patch does what this says, does it?
>>> > It  only touched whether the image is framed or not, and it seems to
>>> > change that in another way than the above says.
>>>
>>> Seems that I'm confusing people here. The attached patch makes sure
>>> that if an image has an alpha plane it will not put a frame.
>>
>> Well, the commit message also says its changes the scaling strategy.
>
> That's where I confused everybody I guess. That commit is already in
> GNOME git since the 18th of July
>
>>
>>>
>>> > However, I agree on the alpha handling. Frameing something that is
>>> > transparent just look weird. If you e.g. set a background other than
>>> > white the "inside" of the frame will look very weird, like putting a
>>> > transparency slide in a frame.
>>> >
>>> > We're past the hard code freeze though, so maybe its a bit late to
>>> > change this.
>>>
>>> The risk of a regression with this patch is 0. Can't we ask for a code
>>> freeze break?
>>
>> Sure, can you do that?
>>
> Will do
>
> Jaap
> --
> nautilus-list mailing list
> nautilus-list@...
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
>

So, the next nautilus version is going to have no decorations on
images with transparency in them..? (assuming you get the freeze break
and commit this patch)..
I hope you do realize that i don't agree with it and that it will
cause bug reports like: "some thumbnails miss a frame"... WHY can't
you just count the number of images with transparency in a folder and
ONLY leave the frame out when all images in a folder have
transparency? kinda like in my screenshots provided earlier. (this
one: http://img2.imagedash.com/hrvF.png)
--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Alexander Larsson]

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 14:18 +0200, Mark wrote:
> So, the next nautilus version is going to have no decorations on
> images with transparency in them..? (assuming you get the freeze break
> and commit this patch)..
> I hope you do realize that i don't agree with it and that it will
> cause bug reports like: "some thumbnails miss a frame"... WHY can't
> you just count the number of images with transparency in a folder and
> ONLY leave the frame out when all images in a folder have
> transparency? kinda like in my screenshots provided earlier. (this
> one: http://img2.imagedash.com/hrvF.png)

Every decision has advantages and disadvantages. Still, one has to make
a decision even if not everyone likes it.

Ultimately the reason I chose to accept this patch is that it just does
not conceptually work to frame a tranparent item, since the background
will show through inside the frame. It looks nice in your screenshots
because the background is white, but that is not always gonna be the
case.

This is independent to whether there are other framed icons in the
directory. Furthermore, its not really a good idea code-complexity wise
to make per-item decisions on global properties like that. The global
property can change at any time and e.g. an added file could suddenly
force us to frame all icons.

Another alternative would be to frame the transparent icons after
overlaying them on some background, but that would loose some of the
information availible about the file (that its transparent), so this
isn't really a great idea either.

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Christoph 'Gigi' Fuchs]

> ... WHY can't
> you just count the number of images with transparency in a folder and
> ONLY leave the frame out when all images in a folder have
> transparency?

I just want to say that I really like this idea.
--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Alexander Larsson <alexl@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 14:18 +0200, Mark wrote:
>> So, the next nautilus version is going to have no decorations on
>> images with transparency in them..? (assuming you get the freeze break
>> and commit this patch)..
>> I hope you do realize that i don't agree with it and that it will
>> cause bug reports like: "some thumbnails miss a frame"... WHY can't
>> you just count the number of images with transparency in a folder and
>> ONLY leave the frame out when all images in a folder have
>> transparency? kinda like in my screenshots provided earlier. (this
>> one: http://img2.imagedash.com/hrvF.png)
>
> Every decision has advantages and disadvantages. Still, one has to make
> a decision even if not everyone likes it.
>
> Ultimately the reason I chose to accept this patch is that it just does
> not conceptually work to frame a tranparent item, since the background
> will show through inside the frame. It looks nice in your screenshots
> because the background is white, but that is not always gonna be the
> case.
>
> This is independent to whether there are other framed icons in the
> directory. Furthermore, its not really a good idea code-complexity wise
> to make per-item decisions on global properties like that. The global
> property can change at any time and e.g. an added file could suddenly
> force us to frame all icons.
>
> Another alternative would be to frame the transparent icons after
> overlaying them on some background, but that would loose some of the
> information availible about the file (that its transparent), so this
> isn't really a great idea either.

Oke, if you say so. I still don't agree on it but i guess my voice is
worth nothing since i'm not a nautilus dev.
But i hope for you and Jaap that people don't get confused by this
patch. But i bet that if someone out there is using nautilus 2.28
(assuming it lands in there) when it's released and that someone has
both jpeg and png files in the same folder with a few that have
transparency you will start seeing bug reports about that.

Just look at this image to see what they might report:
http://img2.imagedash.com/2WLn.png i certainly would report that if i
didn't know about this patch.
--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Alexander Larsson]

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 15:02 +0200, Mark wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Alexander Larsson <alexl@...> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 14:18 +0200, Mark wrote:
> >
> > Another alternative would be to frame the transparent icons after
> > overlaying them on some background, but that would loose some of the
> > information availible about the file (that its transparent), so this
> > isn't really a great idea either.
>
> Oke, if you say so. I still don't agree on it but i guess my voice is
> worth nothing since i'm not a nautilus dev.
> But i hope for you and Jaap that people don't get confused by this
> patch. But i bet that if someone out there is using nautilus 2.28
> (assuming it lands in there) when it's released and that someone has
> both jpeg and png files in the same folder with a few that have
> transparency you will start seeing bug reports about that.

I'm pretty sure some people will be confused by it, but i'm also sure
that some people would be confused if we took the transparent image and
made it non-transparent. There is not always a perfect solution for
everyone.

> Just look at this image to see what they might report:
> http://img2.imagedash.com/2WLn.png i certainly would report that if i
> didn't know about this patch.

I don't think that looks to bad really.
This: http://img2.imagedash.com/Pk2o.png looks far weirder.

--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

[Gilles Dartiguelongue-4]

Le 16 sept. 2009 à 15:11, Alexander Larsson a écrit :

>
> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 15:02 +0200, Mark wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Alexander Larsson  
>> <alexl@...> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 14:18 +0200, Mark wrote:
>>>
>>> Another alternative would be to frame the transparent icons after
>>> overlaying them on some background, but that would loose some of the
>>> information availible about the file (that its transparent), so this
>>> isn't really a great idea either.
>>
>> Oke, if you say so. I still don't agree on it but i guess my voice is
>> worth nothing since i'm not a nautilus dev.
>> But i hope for you and Jaap that people don't get confused by this
>> patch. But i bet that if someone out there is using nautilus 2.28
>> (assuming it lands in there) when it's released and that someone has
>> both jpeg and png files in the same folder with a few that have
>> transparency you will start seeing bug reports about that.
>
> I'm pretty sure some people will be confused by it, but i'm also sure
> that some people would be confused if we took the transparent image  
> and
> made it non-transparent. There is not always a perfect solution for
> everyone.
>
>> Just look at this image to see what they might report:
>> http://img2.imagedash.com/2WLn.png i certainly would report that if i
>> didn't know about this patch.
>
> I don't think that looks to bad really.
> This: http://img2.imagedash.com/Pk2o.png looks far weirder.

Did anybody look at this historical bug report I gave ? Nautilus has a  
history of changing this feature every once in a while and it disturbs  
users either way.

What about transparent images, well I do have transparent images that  
have content on the border and not having frames on it is just as bad  
as having frames on images where there is no content on the border.  
Can we please just stop switching this behavior on and off or make it  
definitively togglable in gconf or something like this ?

--
Gilles Dartiguelongue
gilles.dartiguelongue@...



--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list