Jump to content



Photo

Gnome 3.8 to get new folder icons

gnome folder icons

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#31 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:22

Linux DE's can still use raster icons too, it's just that vector ones are more flexible.


#32 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • OS: OS X Yosemite
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:25

Linux DE's can still use raster icons too, it's just that vector ones are more flexible.

While vectors offer great scalability the images tend to be lacking in details […]

It's a tradeoff you make.

#33 ichi

ichi

    Akihabara Style

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 20-December 04

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:53

I think the main problem is the usage of SVG files for icons. While vectors offer great scalability the images tend to be lacking in details giving them that fake computer rendered appearance. If you're purely going for simple symbols like the OS X menu bar / toolbar icons or Windows (Phone) 8 Metro that's not an issue. If you're going for a more realistic look it does become a problem.

I'm guessing it will be next to impossible to fully recreate this as a vector:


Google for photorealistic vector images.

On a more simple scale, Faenza has some fairly detailed svg icons.

#34 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • OS: OS X Yosemite
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 14 March 2013 - 14:13

Google for photorealistic vector images.

It's feasible to use vector icons with that level of detail?

On a more simple scale, Faenza has some fairly detailed svg icons.

At smaller sizes maybe.

#35 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 14 March 2013 - 16:11

Yes, and it were those exact details I was referring to... Without the recycled paper texture you would end up with a highly computer generated appearance like the folders in the original post.


Except in ALL normally viewable sized of that icon, the recycled paper look is gone as it's to small, and it looks just fine. The graphics and gradients which are part of the gradient are enough. we don't need the skeuomophism to make icons look good, I'd say it'd look better without the lame procedural cell texture. and contrary to what the decryptor said, the cell procedural is very easy on resources and if that is part of the vector standard and can be rendered live, then in fact it would render fine live without needing much resources, but again, at icons sizes, totally useless. never mind you only render it once when you resize the icon anyway. procedurals are the least intensive ways to add super high res detail to textures in games, live rendered and animated. But as far as I know procedurals are not part of the live SVG renderer, but I haven't checked.

It's feasible to use vector icons with that level of detail?


At smaller sizes maybe.


The question is really, is it feasable to have so many details in an icon that a vector isn't MORE than good enough. they're icons, not photos. they're supposed to be simplistic and symbolic iconography, but yes, you can make highly detailed SVG Icons.

#36 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 14 March 2013 - 16:19

The problem doesn't really lie in detail level of vector icons as they can be extremely detailed, even textured if the texture is packaged with it, or it has the procedural as part of the renderer.

The problem with vectors is that, sure they scale infinitely, that doesn't mean a scaled icon looks good. and as you scale the icon down to normal usage sizes you WILL need to redraw it for that size or it's just a big mess. So you might as well just distribute them as rasters to start with, then you have full control of quality, and the big ones scale just as well down as vectors until you reach the next step down anyway, sometimes even better depending on how the vector is made.

http://www.pushing-p...ctor-icons.html old ish, but still valid.

#37 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • OS: OS X Yosemite
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 14 March 2013 - 16:32

Except in ALL normally viewable sized of that icon, the recycled paper look is gone as it's to small, and it looks just fine.

Except what you're saying is plain nonsense. The effect is clearly visible in Stacks, Quick Look, Cover Flow, etc. On the MacBook Pro Retina you can even see it in Finder icon view at default size settings.

The graphics and gradients which are part of the gradient are enough. we don't need the skeuomophism to make icons look good, I'd say it'd look better without the lame procedural cell texture.

In the case of OS X vs most Linux distro's I'd say the photorealistic icons make the interface appear more inviting and a lot less sterile.

The question is really, is it feasable to have so many details in an icon that a vector isn't MORE than good enough. they're icons, not photos. they're supposed to be simplistic and symbolic iconography, but yes, you can make highly detailed SVG Icons.

In an operating system that shows large sizes in many areas details are needed, yes. So what they're supposed to look like is entirely dependent on the kind of interface you have. It's best to have either a lot of details at larger sizes (Aqua) or none at all (Metro).

#38 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 14 March 2013 - 16:36

I'm sorry but there's NOTHING photorealistic about that folder icon, that lame cell procedural texture does not make an obviously computer drawn folder photoreal. personally I like it better clean without the horrible cell texture.

The only ever good use of the cell procedural is to make starfields. it's the most ugly useless procedural ever created,

#39 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • OS: OS X Yosemite
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 14 March 2013 - 16:44

I'm sorry but there's NOTHING photorealistic about that folder icon, that lame cell procedural texture does not make an obviously computer drawn folder photoreal. personally I like it better clean without the horrible cell texture.

I was talking about the OS X icons in general, which are considered to be photorealistic. Up to a certain degree of course. IMO the worst icon that ships with OS X is Photo Booth. It's a perfect example of how bad icons look at larger sizes when lacking detail:

Attached Images

  • PhotoBooth.png


#40 Deactivated.

Deactivated.

  • Joined: 04-December 01

Posted 14 March 2013 - 16:50

In the case of OS X vs most Linux distro's I'd say the photorealistic icons make the interface appear more inviting and a lot less sterile.

One thing's for sure. The folder icons in OS X are the most eco-friendly around! :) (Y) :rainbow:

#41 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • OS: OS X Yosemite
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 14 March 2013 - 16:57

One thing's for sure. The folder icons in OS X are the most eco-friendly around! :) (Y) :rainbow:

Haha true. :rofl: Don't forget the System Preferences Energy Saver icon! Apple actually updated that one back in 2011 from a standard light bulb to a CFL. :laugh:

#42 Haggis

Haggis

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 12
  • Joined: 13-June 07
  • Location: Near Stirling, Scotland
  • OS: Debian 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE (i9305)

Posted 14 March 2013 - 17:01

what color of icons would be best?

#43 +Karl L.

Karl L.

    xorangekiller

  • Tech Issues Solved: 15
  • Joined: 24-January 09
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • OS: Debian Testing

Posted 14 March 2013 - 17:40

what color of icons would be best?


For GNOME? Definitely blue. I often use the GNOME Brave icon theme; its one of my favorites, if not my absolute favorite.

#44 ichi

ichi

    Akihabara Style

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 20-December 04

Posted 14 March 2013 - 18:31

It's feasible to use vector icons with that level of detail?


Feasible? Sure, why not. It's all up to how much time and skill you have when drawing your icon set.

Would this kind of level of detail be enough?

Posted Image



At smaller sizes maybe.


You could add more detail but equivalent PNG folder icons are usually 96x96px at most anyway.

#45 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 14 March 2013 - 20:34

I was talking about the OS X icons in general, which are considered to be photorealistic. Up to a certain degree of course. IMO the worst icon that ships with OS X is Photo Booth. It's a perfect example of how bad icons look at larger sizes when lacking detail:


That large icon example is about 10 times bigger than a large icon should be, at one fifth of that it would still be more than big enough for any icon usage.