[Clipart] Logo, blue on blue.

[Alan Horkan]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote:

> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:37:14 -0400
> From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson <glennrp at comcast.net>
> To: Alan Horkan <horkana at maths.tcd.ie>
> Cc: Tobias Jakobs <tobias.jakobs at web.de>, clipart at freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Clipart] Logo, blue on blue.
>
> At 07:20 PM 9/26/2004 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> >
> >On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Tobias Jakobs wrote:
> >
> >Anti aliasing is for Wimps!
> >
> >Anti-Aliasing is at least overrated and really is not necessary to produce
> >a good graphic is this situation as clear sharp edges are being used.
> >There really is no need for more than one channel of transparency as the
> >drop shadow is solid black and hard edged and does not need different
> >amounts of transparency.
> >
> >Using a 1x1 pixel image for the background sounds like far easier
> >solution anyway.
>
> Look at my demo at http://pmt.sf.net/opossum where the PNG is
> antialiased and the GIFs aren't.  The JPEG is antialiased against
> a known background color.  Any time you have curved edges and
> transparency, even if they are sharp, and even if the shadow is
> black but has curves, you need antialiasing.

This Gif on the lower left looks fine and has sharp black edges like the
OpenClipart.org Logo.

I understand that if you wanted a grey shadow/cloud that RGBA would be
necessary but the Logo doesn't feature fuzzy grey edges so using more than
a single layer of transparency is overkill anyway.

I know how to use Anti-Aliasing but I prefer not to use it when it is not
needed and I hope you understand my point that it is not needed in the
case of the OpenClipart.org logo.  I have been playing around with pixel
graphics for a while and designing icons and I much prefer sharp crisp
lines so I prefer not to use anti-aliasing in most cases.

- Alan