Windows defines standard sizes (16x16, 32x32, 48x48) and standard color depths (16 colors, 256 colors, 16.8M colors), that should be present in any general-purpose icon. They have different sizes (or resolutions) and color depths. We have already mentioned in previous paragraph, that an icon is composed of several images. Transparent pixels are usually represented using chessboard pattern in icon editors. When a pixel is transparent, background is displayed on that spot. But icons always support per-pixel transparency, which means that any pixel can be marked either transparent or opaque. Internally, the icon still has a rectangular shape, just like an image.
When you put an icon on your desktop, it appears to have arbitrary shape and you can see background around that shape. Images usually have rectangular shape, icons on the other hand do not. There are multiple images inside an icon, each optimized for best experience under specific circumstances. Icon should look good on high-resolution LCD as well as on a ten years old monochromatic monitor. This is because icon must be usable under wide variety of conditions. Icon is composed of arbitrary number of images. It is stored using one of the standard formats (BMP, PNG, GIF, JPEG, TIFF. It may have arbitrary size, resolution and color depth. For now, let's get back to year 2005, where icons and images are closest friends.Ī computer image is a raster (composed of pixels) or vector (composed of lines, rectangles, circles, etc.) picture. Icons would still be graphical symbols, but not images anymore.
In future version of your operating system, icons may be using animations or even 3D models. But this could, and probably would change. An icon (graphical symbol) can easily be represented by an image. But then there are shoes that are not made of leather. Shoes may be considered a specialization of leather with some added bells and whistles. What are the differences between an image and an icon?
0 kommentar(er)
