png->gif

i found a very good collection of png icons but as i use this icons in
explorer i have many problems of visualization (the background appears a
little gray). i know that this is a problem of IE so i want to convert
icons from png->gif preserving the trasparency... is that possible?
is there a tool to do this job (eventually in batch mode because the number
of icons is big)?

morgan

morgan wrote:

> i found a very good collection of png icons but as i use this icons in
> explorer i have many problems of visualization (the background appears a
> little gray). i know that this is a problem of IE so i want to convert
> icons from png->gif preserving the trasparency... is that possible?
> is there a tool to do this job (eventually in batch mode because the number
> of icons is big)?

Depends if the transparency is alpha-channel or palette based. .gif only
supports palette-based transparency. If it's alpha-channel based, you
are going lose all transperancy information upon conversion to .gif.

PaintShop Pro has a batch conversion tool. I'm sure others do too.

'Later
Peter

--
Peter aka Ulujain - Computing for Fun!
http://www.ulujain.org/

in post: <news:Xns94D77707AA961morganmlNOSPAMRIMUOV@193.70. 192.192>
morgan <> said:

> i want to convert icons from png->gif preserving the trasparency...
> is that possible?

of course

> is there a tool to do this job

any decent graphics editor/conversion program

> (eventually in batch mode because the number
> of icons is big)?

same as above

--
b r u c i e

brucie wrote:

> in post: <news:Xns94D77707AA961morganmlNOSPAMRIMUOV@193.70. 192.192>
> morgan <> said:
>
>
>>i want to convert icons from png->gif preserving the trasparency...
>>is that possible?
>
>
> of course

Not of course. .png has more than one way of saving image transparency.
From the OP's description of how it appears in IE, I'm betting they're
referring to alpha-channel transparency. Converting that to .gif will
*not* preserve transparency as neither the 87a nor 89a .gif spec
understands alpha-channel transparency. The graphics app may attempt to
convert between alpha-channel and palette-based but the results are
going to be less than satisfactory.

'Later
Peter


--
Peter aka Ulujain - Computing for Fun!
http://www.ulujain.org/

in post: <news:ejjjc.2273$ om>
Ulujain <> said:

>>>i want to convert icons from png->gif preserving the trasparency...
>>>is that possible?

>> of course

> Not of course.

yes of course.

> The graphics app may attempt to convert between alpha-channel and
> palette-based but the results are going to be less than
> satisfactory.

you don't know that.


--
b r u c i e

brucie <****@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote in message news:<c6kgr9$cve01$>...
> in post: <news:ejjjc.2273$ om>
> Ulujain <> said:
>
> >>>i want to convert icons from png->gif preserving the trasparency...
> >>>is that possible?
>
> >> of course
>
> > Not of course.
>
> yes of course.

Prove it.

>
> > The graphics app may attempt to convert between alpha-channel and
> > palette-based but the results are going to be less than
> > satisfactory.
>
> you don't know that.

I do. Years of dealing with graphics and their formats have taught me
this. It'd be more correct to say you don't know that.

'Later
Peter

in post: <news:. com>
(Ulujain) said:

>>> The graphics app may attempt to convert between alpha-channel and
>>> palette-based but the results are going to be less than
>>> satisfactory.

>> you don't know that.

> I do.

no you don't.

> Years of dealing with graphics and their formats have taught me
> this.

then in all that time why did it never occur to you that it depends on
what the image is and what its intended use is before you make sweeping
statements claiming that a conversion is going to be "less than
satisfactory"

--
b r u c i e

brucie wrote:


> no you don't.

Once again, I'll ask you to prove me wrong. Either put up or shut up.

>
>
>>Years of dealing with graphics and their formats have taught me
>>this.
>
>
> then in all that time why did it never occur to you that it depends on
> what the image is and what its intended use is before you make sweeping
> statements claiming that a conversion is going to be "less than
> satisfactory"

I like the way you've conveniently edited out my request to prove it.
Why? Because you have no ****ing clue what you're talking about.

Who cares what its intended use is? Who cares what it looks like? We
aren't discussing what the freakin' image will be used for, rather how
it's made. I.e, the way it's encoded. The transparency schema is
different between alpha-channel .png and either 87a or 89a .gif. I can't
make it any clearer than that. Go and Google for the particulars of the
two formats if you want to know more.

Come back and argue with me when you actually know what a .gif is and
what a .png is. Until then, **** off and have a nice day.

'Later
Peter


--
Peter aka Ulujain - Computing for Fun!
http://www.ulujain.org/

in post: <news:Rksjc.2072$ m>
Ulujain <> said:

>> then in all that time why did it never occur to you that it depends on
>> what the image is and what its intended use is before you make sweeping
>> statements claiming that a conversion is going to be "less than
>> satisfactory"

> I like the way you've conveniently edited out my request to prove it.
> Why?

i could create an image that is suitable converted into any other format
so theres no point in proving it as its so easy. it wouldn't be fair.

> Because you have no ****ing clue what you're talking about.

you've caught me, your towering intellect is too much for me, please
allow me to bow down in humble submission.

> Who cares what its intended use is? Who cares what it looks like? We
> aren't discussing what the freakin' image will be used for, rather how
> it's made.

it doesn't matter how its made its how it converts that is the issue and
if that conversion is suitable for the image and its intended use.

> **** off and have a nice day.

thankyou


--
b r u c i e

brucie wrote:

> in post: <news:Rksjc.2072$ m>
> Ulujain <> said:
>
>
>>>then in all that time why did it never occur to you that it depends on
>>>what the image is and what its intended use is before you make sweeping
>>>statements claiming that a conversion is going to be "less than
>>>satisfactory"
>
>
>
>>I like the way you've conveniently edited out my request to prove it.
>>Why?

Still couldn't answer that one, could you? Really easy to say "you're
wrong." Harder to prove it, which you haven't done, and never will.

>
>
> i could create an image that is suitable converted into any other format
> so theres no point in proving it as its so easy. it wouldn't be fair.

Go and read the OP's post again. The OP mentions the hallmarks of how
..png images with applied alpha-channel transparency appear in IE. I
merely mentioned that doing a straight conversion to .gif may not
produce the result they're after. The transparency mechanisms are different.

>>Because you have no ****ing clue what you're talking about.
>
>
> you've caught me, your towering intellect is too much for me, please
> allow me to bow down in humble submission.
>

No, I obviously just know more about graphical formats than you. Your
knowledge of HTML and CSS would probably leave mine in the dust.
However, I do try and make a point of not arguing about things I know
next to nothing about.

'Later
Peter

--
Peter aka Ulujain - Computing for Fun!
http://www.ulujain.org/