?48x48 icons in thumbnailmode are not sharp

[Samuel]

Code: Select all

28.04.15 Added: Use 48x48 icons by default in thumbs mode on Vista or newer (32/64)
28.04.15 Added: Set icon size in thumbs mode manually via wincmd.ini [Configuration] ThumbIconSize, will be reduced to thumb size if larger (32/64)

Currently there is a big difference in TC and Explorer visualizing 48x48 Icons:
http://www.file-upload.net/download-11659081/scaling.png.html

Explorer seems to use native icons if available. If not available Explorer scales 64x64 down to 48x48 instead of scaling 32x32 up to 48x48 like TC does. Also currently the "arrow up" looks bad. (should improve with the new icon library)

[Lefteous]

If not available Explorer scales 64x64 down to 48x48 instead of scaling 32x32 up to 48x48 like TC does.

Here Explorer scales up 32x32 icons to 48x48 which really looks terrible. Regedit.exe is a good example which only has a 32x32 icon (Win7, 64 bit).

I would prefer an 'as large as available' behavior. Scaled down if necessary, but never ever scale up.

[Samuel]

I would prefer to have the option:
Option 1: Scale down bigger icons if available. Otherwise show smaller icons without scaling. (Lefteous proposal)
Option 2: Show icons as big as available without any scaling.
Option 3: Scale down bigger icons if available. Otherwise scale up smaller icons.

Personally I would consider option 1 or 2.

[ghisler(Author)]

Hmm, maybe the program doesn't contain 48x48 icons, and Explorer is resizing a large one (e.g. 128x128 or 256x256)?

Btw, you can set the thumbnail icon size with
ThumbIconSize=
in wincmd.ini [Configuration] now.

[Samuel]

Regards my screenshot there ist a 48x48 Version of doc and vlc. Not sure about pdf. I know about the ThumbIconSize, but I would like to use the big icons. Currently I wont.

Are you sure you didn't resize the 32x32 icon?

[Lefteous]

2Samuel

Option 1: Scale down bigger icons if available. Otherwise show smaller icons without scaling. (Lefteous proposal)
Option 2: Show icons as big as available without any scaling.
Option 3: Scale down bigger icons if available. Otherwise scale up smaller icons.

What is the difference between 1 and 2? Would option 1 cut a large icon?

[Samuel]

2Samuel

Option 1: Scale down bigger icons if available. Otherwise show smaller icons without scaling. (Lefteous proposal)
Option 2: Show icons as big as available without any scaling.
Option 3: Scale down bigger icons if available. Otherwise scale up smaller icons.

What is the difference between 1 and 2? Would option 1 cut a large icon?

Icon 1 has 64x64, 32x32, Icon 2 has 32x32

Option 1: scale Icon 1 64x64 down to 48x48; use Icon 2 as 32x32
Option 2: use Icon 1 32x32; use Icon 2 as 32x32
Option 3: scale Icon 1 64x64 down to 48x48; scale Icon 2 32x32 up to 48x48
TC 9b1(*): scale Icon 1 32x32 up to 48x48; scale Icon 2 32x32 up to 48x48

*) it seams to be like this / don't know for sure.
I would be fine with option 1 and 2.

[Lefteous]

I see. So I guess the different users want

- same size of icons in thumbnails
- no upscaling of icons
- no downscaling of icons

Would be great to have an option.

[Samuel]

I just wanted to confirm, that there is a native 48x48 icon for word in explorer:
https://abload.de/img/wordlcs9q.png

As you can see in the image there is a 256x256 icon. This icon (or the 128x128 / 64x64 icons - it doesn't matter they look the same) is scaled down all the way from 255x255 to 49x49.

Then there is a 48x48 icon. (the image part is abstact now) This icon is scaled down all the way from 47x47 down to 33x33.

Then there is a 32x32 icon. (the "W" part of the icon has no text around it) This icon is scaled down all the way from 31x31 down to 17x17.

Finaly there is a 16x16 icon.

[ghisler(Author)]

But is that the icon which is associated with that specific file?

[Samuel]

But is that the icon which is associated with that specific file?

Sorry, I missed your post previously. Yes it is and it displays well in Explorer.

Could you please consider to improve the scaling. (I don't know how I might help)

[Samuel]

Perhaps you could post the system calls that are executed?

[Samuel]

I just found out that the buttonbar uses the 48x48 icon - it looks really good: (the file list uses the upscaled 32x32 icon instead)
https://abload.de/img/48x48icons04xqx.png

However the buttonbar uses some really bad scaling. Here are the 46x46 icons in file list and on the buttonbar:
https://abload.de/img/46x46iconsbsu7g.png

Could you please post the system calls executed at this two places?

[Samuel]

Code: Select all

19.06.16 Fixed: Thumbnails view: 48x48 icons were not sharp (scaled up from32x32) even if the icon file contained 48x48 or larger icon images (32/64)

Thank you, it looks good for most of the icons - especially for the .doc icon.

There are 2 remaining problems:
https://abload.de/img/sharp1bwki2.png

1) The "directory up"-icon is scaled by a bad algorithm and looks very strange (german word: "ausgefranst") at the top side of the arrow. For reference I added the 32x32 icon (bottom) and scaled it up to 48x48 manually in Irfan View (top)

The same is true about the registry icon, although it doesn't look as weird as the arrow up icon.

1a) I would prefer an option ThumbIconScaling=0 where this Icons (only available at 32x32) would not be scaled at all.

Code: Select all

Option 1: Scale down bigger icons if available. Otherwise show smaller icons without scaling. (Lefteous proposal) 

1b) Otherwise the scaling algorithm should be improved. For example Irfan View > Ctrl + R > Resample instead of Resize.

2) The "shared folder"-icon is scaled up all the way from 16x16 in thumbnail mode. For reference I added the 16x16 icon to the top, the icon shown with ThumbIconSize=32 (also wrong) in the middle and a normal 32x32 Folder icon at the bottom. At ThumbIconSize=32 the 16x16 folder icon is scaled up to 32x32 overlayed with the 32x32 hand. At ThumbIconSize=48 the 16x16 folder icon is scaled up to 48x48 overlayed with the 32x32 hand.

Non thumbnail modes are fine (The 48x48 folder icon is overlayed with the 32x32 scaled hand), see this screenshot:
https://abload.de/img/sharp288j0w.png

2a) Do the same as in non thumbnail modes.

[Samuel]

There are 2 remaining problems:
https://abload.de/img/sharp1bwki2.png

1) The "directory up"-icon is scaled by a bad algorithm and looks very strange (german word: "ausgefranst") at the top side of the arrow. For reference I added the 32x32 icon (bottom) and scaled it up to 48x48 manually in Irfan View (top)

The same is true about the registry icon, although it doesn't look as weird as the arrow up icon.

1a) I would prefer an option ThumbIconScaling=0 where this Icons (only available at 32x32) would not be scaled at all.

Code: Select all

Option 1: Scale down bigger icons if available. Otherwise show smaller icons without scaling. (Lefteous proposal) 

1b) Otherwise the scaling algorithm should be improved. For example Irfan View > Ctrl + R > Resample instead of Resize.

2) The "shared folder"-icon is scaled up all the way from 16x16 in thumbnail mode. For reference I added the 16x16 icon to the top, the icon shown with ThumbIconSize=32 (also wrong) in the middle and a normal 32x32 Folder icon at the bottom. At ThumbIconSize=32 the 16x16 folder icon is scaled up to 32x32 overlayed with the 32x32 hand. At ThumbIconSize=48 the 16x16 folder icon is scaled up to 48x48 overlayed with the 32x32 hand.

Non thumbnail modes are fine (The 48x48 folder icon is overlayed with the 32x32 scaled hand), see this screenshot:
https://abload.de/img/sharp288j0w.png

In beta 4 the scaling (1) looks better. I can still see the scaling and would love the mentioned option not to scale 32x32 icons (1a) The "shared folder" looks still bad. It got slightly worse. (2)