(resend) programs/winemenubuilder: scale 64x64 classic icons to 48x48 for Icns format
per at morth.org
Wed Oct 17 03:11:12 CDT 2012
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Vincent Povirk <madewokherd at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that scaling to 32x32 would probably work out better.
> Personally, I probably would've chosen 128x128, since that would
> involve no loss of information or distortion (but maybe we don't like
> the increased file size?).
It's however much more common that a 32x32 icon is already present. In
fact, checking my own set of wine generated icons, they all already
contain a 32x32 icon. Actually, most contain a 48x48 icon as well.
I must admit I'm also no expert at image scaling, but presumably
scaling twice is much worse than scaling once, right? In that case I'd
say we only want to store a 64 -> 48 scaled icon only if there's no
128, 256 or 512 size icon available, as those would only be scaled
once to produce the final image.
I'm not so sure it's a good idea to scale upwards, it's better to let
the OS scale down an even larger size in that case, if one is
available. It's quite uncommon to have larger icons though, at least
in my set.
> I guess it also depends on what size the OS uses to display the icon.
> If it will usually be a particular size, we should probably take that
> into account, though I don't know how much we can really do about it.
I don't think it's possible to say that it has a usual display size.
Default in the Finder seem to be 64x64, but has probably changed over
time. Other applications, e.g. launchpad, has larger ones and the dock
is dynamic based on the number of items it contains.
More information about the wine-devel