Forum:Trees and Transparency
Image transparency is one of those sides of editing that most users cannot do, either through lack of knowledge, lack of skill, or lack of interest. Out of those few that do apply transparency to images, most focus their efforts solely on the images they're uploading themselves, rather than transing images others have uploaded. Most transparencies are quick, whatever you're applying it to.
Not tree transparencies. These can sit in Category:Images needing transparency for months or years. Out of the 257 images in that category currently, the following are trees:
- File:Blossoming tree.png
File:Dead tree.png- already transed 00:07, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- File:Elder tree.png
- File:Eucalyptus Tree.png
- File:Green tree.png
- File:Tree (Tribute to Guthix).png
- File:Season tree2.png
- File:Swaying tree.png
- File:Village spirit tree.png
- File:Dramen tree.png
12 images, roughly 5% of the images needing transparency, are trees. This isn't counting those tree images that are untransed but not tagged. Out of those, we can see an image from the post-TWW event with the butterflies, one from the Gielinor Games, and even one from the 2011 Easter event. That's three years ago.
My proposal is this: images of trees should not be transed by default. If someone wants to do so then fine, but thetemplate should not be applied to tree images. I am not proposing that we replace all currently transed images with untransed ones just for the sake of it.
18:09, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
Support-ish - If the background isn't noisy, or if they'll look terrible without one, then they shouldn't really need transparency. For example, the swaying and blossoming tree images have other trees in the background that might make it hard to identify, but the eucalyptus tree image has nothing but grass in the background, and some scenery (Dg trees) just look bad with trans. If we can take most of them from a good enough angle to avoid any photobombing scenery, then I don't see a problem with this. Although, some people might have issues with consistency (we trans pretty much everything else) so I'm not completely sure. Kq head (talk) 19:12, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral - It's good to have transed trees, but also bad. Its good because it matches other images that have trans, especially if its in an infobox. Its also bad because the transed tree may look worse, but also, if its not going to be in an infobox, why bother transing it? It looks just fine untransed outside of an infobox.
Oppose - You're essentially saying that because these are difficult to add transparency to, it shouldn't be done at all. That's not really a valid reason -- all trees should be transed unless there's some content-related reason that they shouldn't be. But you haven't brought up one. There's no reason to do this besides artifically minimizing the size of the category. ʞooɔ 03:07, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Cook. I know how intrinsically hellish it is to trans a tree, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. 06:37, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Are trees really hard to trans or something? I've never done one myself, and was never brilliant at trans in the first place. cqm 08:24, 6 Apr 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
- Trunks are easy. Leaves are utter hell. 09:14, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
- There's a combination of the fact that they're pretty big and the fact that they're shape is quite complicated added, to the fact that there's almost always itty bitty bits of background showing through which often have to be removed individually. Plus the leaves now-days have some sort of translucency applied around the edges, meaning you can't just do a simple pixel-by-pixel cut around it. The fact that often you're selecting something green against what is often a green background also doesn't help. And you realise that without the transparency it still looks very much like a tree in its natural environment so the motivation to change it drains away. I think that covers it :) --Henneyj 23:03, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that the leaves are bitmaps that are enlarged, so they scale differently from the scalable 3d models used for pretty much everything else in RuneScape. The difference is that normal structures are triangles being put together (so you can select it perfectly by using the lasso select tool), but for trees, there are a bunch of things (mostly leaves) that are just 2d pixelated and blurred things, which can be seen on File:Elder tree.png really well. It's like resizing a small PNG (which is bitmapped) image to a much larger size: it becomes blurry, but not in the same way as normal structures do in RS. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 14:46, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose - This makes no sense unless your actual problem is not with the fact that trees are hard to trans, but that the category is too big and that some images have a
Oil4 I made this 08:32, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Support - As long as the background doesn't take away from the image. Tree transparency is way too arduous for such little profit. Not having any transparency is not going to take away from the image at all (unless the background is bad but that can always be fixed with a better angle). 01:07, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
Support - Trees are one of the few objects where I think applying transparency could potentially detract from the image. Most of the un-trans'd examples Ansela linked in her opening look fine to me and appear fine on the article. However, some of the more intricate trees, especially dead trees/trees without leaves, look a bit odd if they have transparency added when they are used on pages. I would go as far as to say that transparency should not be added to such images. Suppa chuppa 23:58, April 21, 2014 (UTC)