On 14 August 2011 12:12, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 13 21:35, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 13 August 2011 08:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > On Aug 12 20:37, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >> > There's no rush.  Even if I check in the current icons to the setup
>> >> > repository, we're not quite finished anyway.  Andy was trying to take
>> >> > another stab at the smaller icon sizes 24x24 and 16x16.
>> >>
>> >> I hope to get 'round to this this weekend.
>> >
>> > I'm looking forward.  I have a hard time to see how you can get a
>> > recognizable result at 16x16.
>>
>> I wasn't going to attempt that. (I now tried it anyway, and the result
>> indeed isn't pretty.)
>>
>> No, what I was going to try was using Warren's bevelled Cygwin logo
>> with the wider stroke to create the standalone logo at 16 and 24 and
>> the logo-in-terminal at 32, 48, and 64.
>>
>> Resulting cygwin-terminal.ico attached, with the 256x256 taken from
>> the current one. I think it's an improvement, particularly at 32x32.
>
> Your attempts at 16x16, 24x24, and 32x32 definitely look better than
> mine.  Also, somehow I seem to have broken the terminal frame in 32x32.
> I didn't notice that before, but in direct comparison with your 32x32
> it's quite obvious.
>
> As for 48x48 and 64x64, it seems the thicker original stroke results in
> a washed-out looking stroke in the inner part of the C, just below the
> wedge. Can you get rid of that washed-out look?

I see what you mean. I think it's because the scaled-down stroke is
less than a pixel wide in theory, but due to its position it ends up
being divided between two pixel lines, so you get a two-pixel darkish
grey instead of a one-pixel light grey. Fixing this would require
redrawing the C at the high resolution in such a way that it maps to
whole pixels when scaling down. I'm afraid that's beyond my pay grade
though. Warren, if you've got any more spare time to spend on this ...

Meanwhile, attached is the same again but with the 48x48 from your
current icon, and a 64x64 scaled down from your 256x256, because I
didn't like the C in the current 64x64 being bigger in relation to the
terminal frame than at the other sizes. The stroke probably is a bit
too dark though ...


>> > Maybe a terminal or a setup box with just a green wedge?
>>
>> Hmm, interesting idea. Attempt attached, with wedge-in-terminal
>> instead of the standalone logo at 16x16 and 24x24. I think I prefer
>> the logo though.
>
> What?  They are cute!  I like them a lot.  I'd like do the same with the
> setup icon.

I still prefer the logo there because it provides a good connection
between the 16x16 window icon and the 32x32 taskbar icon on Vista/7,
as the logo is the same in both. Also, the logo is rather well
established, whereas the green wedge on its own wouldn't necessarily
be recognised as representing Cygwin.


>> Picking up on an old point here. As Warren suggests, the 64x64 doesn't
>> actually seem to be used if 256x256 is present. For example, when
>> setting the desktop icon size to large, a downscaled 256x256 is used.
>> Shall we drop the 64x64s for a bit of a size saving (particularly as
>> they're in BMP rather than PNG format)?
>
> You're saving 12K or so.  Given that we already have the icons, is it
> worth it to delete them for just a few K?

There's also the having-to-create-them-for-no-obvious-benefit factor.

Andy