21-10-19, 12:14 | #21 | |
Golden
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,096
|
Quote:
Gimp actually has native .ico support. Each layer can have a different size to include icons for multiple resolutions. You can simply choose 'export as' and use the .ico extension. |
|
21-10-19, 12:50 | #22 | |
Member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,502
|
Quote:
I'll try it when I get home and see if it looks better, and update the package if so! Thank you! |
|
21-10-19, 13:00 | #23 |
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,139
|
I use Paint.net which has a .ico plugin (and lots of other useful tools too) which, from the sound of it, works in a very similar way to GIMP. When you save as an .ico you can choose between just saving at one particular size or as an .ico set which covers the recommended minimum Windows icon set size requirements.
The 'problem' I've found with Paint.net is that whilst the results are very acceptable no matter whether I've adjusted anti-alaising, sharpness etc there are some finely detailed icons I've created, particularly those with text, that do not look good in the icon sizes most usually chosen by Windows. Large and Extra Large look perfect but desktop shortcuts, Medium, Tiles and Content Windows Explorer icon views lose detail, sometimes making anything but the boldest text unreadable. What I found was when using that 'professional' IcoFX2 tool mentioned suddenly those same icon sets, created from the exactly the same parent image (512x512 PNG made using Paint.net) display noticeably better, especially those medium icon sizes. I actually included an optional 96x96 size in the icon set which I found was selected in preference and looks better than the default 48x48 or 64x64 used by Windows for many purposes. But I do use a slightly unusual display resolution (1152x864) which might be the reason for that. I've never thought to try an on online .ico conversion tool so I might well use that place ^^ with some of the test icons I used for IcoFX2 versus Paint.net ICO testing to see if it can match the former's superior medium size icon picture quality. EDIT Just tried a few test icons and the online conversion is OK. The 'pro' icon creation program mentioned is definitely superior across the icon size range and I'd use it, if I could justify such an outlay (I can't), in preference every time. Whether the online conversion is better than the Paint.net ICO conversion is debatable. Both have very different properties by default and TBH at the medium icon display size whilst both are acceptable I do not really like the way either handled my test icon. But for the right subject, like those TR icons, they're fine. Last edited by fallenangle; 21-10-19 at 16:42. |
23-10-19, 09:12 | #24 |
Member
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,107
|
Where have you found the background design for the apps? The circle with the hexagons?
|
24-10-19, 05:51 | #25 |
Member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,502
|
From the TR1/2 icons, and edited them a little where needed
|
24-10-19, 08:11 | #26 |
Member
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,107
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|