New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Display 256x256 icons in full size #298

Closed
trosh opened this Issue Jun 6, 2018 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@trosh

trosh commented Jun 6, 2018

Windows Explorer does not handle 128x128 icons, but deals quite gracefully (at least on Win7) with 256x256 ones. I am using Keypirinha as a games launcher (amongst other uses) and enjoy using jumbo icons for game covers, but satellitesize=jumbo displays 256x256 icons as 128x128. I feel like using 256x256 display would be an improvement, and a slightly more integrated interface; at least for this specific use case.

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Jun 7, 2018

Member

"Jumbo" does not have the same meaning in KP (128) than for the system (256). This limitation is purely out of cosmetics concern and significant efforts have been made to render smooth 128/256 icons in KP, ending up with better results in KP than in Explorer (shell32 being bugged for some well-defined cases).

Historically, jumbo icons in KP were meant to be sized the same than the system (i.e. 256), hence the name. But after several tests, it occurred 256 was too large for common use (HiDPI excluded).

It's too late to just change the one line in the source code that would make you happy since users now rely on it, but I guess one more enum to the satellitesize setting wouldn't hurt in a future release.

Feel free to propose a choice of names for the 256 enum if you are in a creative mood :)

Member

polyvertex commented Jun 7, 2018

"Jumbo" does not have the same meaning in KP (128) than for the system (256). This limitation is purely out of cosmetics concern and significant efforts have been made to render smooth 128/256 icons in KP, ending up with better results in KP than in Explorer (shell32 being bugged for some well-defined cases).

Historically, jumbo icons in KP were meant to be sized the same than the system (i.e. 256), hence the name. But after several tests, it occurred 256 was too large for common use (HiDPI excluded).

It's too late to just change the one line in the source code that would make you happy since users now rely on it, but I guess one more enum to the satellitesize setting wouldn't hurt in a future release.

Feel free to propose a choice of names for the 256 enum if you are in a creative mood :)

@trosh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@trosh

trosh Jun 7, 2018

trosh commented Jun 7, 2018

@trosh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@trosh

trosh Jun 7, 2018

Ok, this might be better: a scalable jumbo size which shows 128x128 as usual, unless the icon is available in 256, then shows the 256 one. This would mean leaving enough space for big icons.

In terms of name… maybe spaceship lol? Anyway I don't actually think the default display should be bigger than jumbo, so maybe something like jumboscale might describe it better.

trosh commented Jun 7, 2018

Ok, this might be better: a scalable jumbo size which shows 128x128 as usual, unless the icon is available in 256, then shows the 256 one. This would mean leaving enough space for big icons.

In terms of name… maybe spaceship lol? Anyway I don't actually think the default display should be bigger than jumbo, so maybe something like jumboscale might describe it better.

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Jun 7, 2018

Member

Haha thanks for the name :)
An adaptative size feature is a no go for now unfortunately.

Member

polyvertex commented Jun 7, 2018

Haha thanks for the name :)
An adaptative size feature is a no go for now unfortunately.

@trosh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@trosh

trosh Jun 8, 2018

trosh commented Jun 8, 2018

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Jun 8, 2018

Member

I don't think it's a bad idea but shell32 does not offer a proper API to deal with file icons. For instance it does not allow to get the original sizes of an icon, nor to get the original icon data. KP works around that partly already by extracting some icons of some types of files by itself, which allows proper icon scaling. A lot of work has been put in this already, really. However doing that for any kind of file is a lot more work for very little benefit. I.e. reinventing the wheel by doing what shell32 is supposed to do already. So as things are currently, implementing this feature would only bring inconsistent behavior unfortunately.

Member

polyvertex commented Jun 8, 2018

I don't think it's a bad idea but shell32 does not offer a proper API to deal with file icons. For instance it does not allow to get the original sizes of an icon, nor to get the original icon data. KP works around that partly already by extracting some icons of some types of files by itself, which allows proper icon scaling. A lot of work has been put in this already, really. However doing that for any kind of file is a lot more work for very little benefit. I.e. reinventing the wheel by doing what shell32 is supposed to do already. So as things are currently, implementing this feature would only bring inconsistent behavior unfortunately.

@trosh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@trosh

trosh Jun 8, 2018

trosh commented Jun 8, 2018

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Sep 13, 2018

Member

The satellite_size setting now accepts the superjumbo value in v2.19

Member

polyvertex commented Sep 13, 2018

The satellite_size setting now accepts the superjumbo value in v2.19

@polyvertex polyvertex closed this Sep 13, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment