Forum:Change to translucency methods

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Change to translucency methods
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 1 January 2013 by Liquidhelium.

There are not that many people out there who bother with adding particle transparency or semi-transparency. It's an arduous task and it can be extremely difficult. However, image makers have helped us out by adding normal transparency to images, minus the part with particles. One problem though: It's ugly. Char walked around like this for two weeks before receiving semi-trans. This dude waited two months before getting his. And what about this? It's been 8 months since he received normal transparency.

So I have two ideas on what to add to RS:IMG

  1. Images should be reverted to the untrans'd form after they have had normal transparency added - that way we'd see this instead of this. This would be easy to implement if we just let all our normal images makers know.
  2. Images that are uploaded without an untrans'd version should have their particles removed in a second upload (this only applies to image with particles).

I'm not so sure about #2, but I have no other ideas on what to do if there is no untrans'd version. Basically I would just like to discuss how we should fix these images when it takes so long to add semi/particle transparency to them, because they look absolutely terrible.

Discuss. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:10, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - Everyone knows I put trans on 90% of things I upload - and that includes those with particles. I often feel bad for uploading transed images with particles because I don't have the time to apply it; and the fact that it looks silly (especially with that Char image). On most cases I just trans the image and that's it, but if theres a need to upload the untransed image first and then the transed image be uploaded (or the other way around) I don't see any inconvenience to that. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 20:55, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Agree 1, Neutral 2 - Having an untrans'd image will look better than having a trans'd image without translucency. For 2, I am not sure what it means >.> Explore and enjoy the world! TIMMMO Work it with all my heart!++Discuss Sign 16:37, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

It means remove the particle all together, like I inadvertantly did for File:Yt-MejKot.png - note the particles at the base of the stomach on the previous version. In that particular example no one was really bothered enough to re-do the trans, but it would be a shame if they were permanently removed for something like File:Automaton.png, where they add to the image, or Char, linked above, or if a still of File:Inner Power.gif (epilepsy/vision impairment warning) existed.
For what it's worth I would support 2 being the image used, as opposed to the untransed version, and tag it with {{Transparency}} directing you to the file history. I can see a possible confusion with merged histories, but I don't think that'll come up very often.
I also remember mention of a talk page discussion regarding ghost translucency which came up in s:c when Karlis went to add translucency to a ghost image. It's on a talk page somewhere, probably from a couple of years ago (not many of us use talk pages for that sort of discussion now). I'll try and dig it out. cqm 20:48, 19 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
Cook to the rescue: Category talk:Images needing transparency#Ghosts. Not everything is possible to add translucency to, but it'd be nice if we acknowledged this somewhere in RS:IMG. I never got the hang of adding translucency myself, but when you see people good at it refusing to do it, I get the feeling it can't always be done. cqm 01:35, 20 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
Let me just tell you right now - you are right, sometimes it is impossible. I have decided that it is virtually impossible to add translucency to ghost images unless you sit there for a week and completely recreate it. This to this literally took hours. That was somewhat doable because they are mostly a solid color, unlike something like Necrovarus. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:58, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Use common sense #1, Nope #2 - Restricting what we can do with translucency will cut out how much transers will do, and honestly, if we have everything but the particles done, it wouldn't make as much of a difference to the viewer. Though I do agree that we should change the way we look at images such as the one linked above, as the second revision is awful. If it looks plain ugly, keep it untransed until it can be completely transed and translucified. Hair 23:10, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Selectively 1, oppose 2 - Removing particles just for being unable to trans them is stupid. As for #1, that could work. My suggestion would be that if you upload an image with translucency/particles and you can't trans them, you upload a trans'd version (with black space around the particles...), then an untrans'd version. That way, people see a non-ugly non-trans'd version, but the translucency-applier can use the already trans'd version to save them some trouble. And things like Armadyl Spiritual Mage should have no trans at all until lucency is applied, frankly. O_o User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:12, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Notice of intent - People seem to agree that option #1 is generally the better option. This thread will be closed as such soon if no one else has anything to say. --LiquidTalk 16:02, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Option 1 will be implemented, with common sense, of course. --LiquidTalk 21:52, January 1, 2013 (UTC)