## FANDOM

9,902 Pages

 This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.
Forums: Index War Room Transparent images

Can we please stop ruining every single image we can ruin by adding an alpha transparency layer? Images like this do not need a downsized .jpg compressed .png :File:MW3_Nikolai.png|transparent version. I will be frank when I say that they look ostensibly bad, even worse when it was originally a screenshot!

Making vectors and logos transparent is fine, menu logos like :File:MW_Weapon_M16A4.png should be transparent. But screenshots should never have their backgrounds removed, especially if the screenshot is originally in the .jpg format. And that includes first person views of guns. This image may have transparency applied very precisely and professionally, but it just doesn't look as natural as the original.

Can we please stop doing this to our poor images? If the image is a screenshot, leave it as it is, because once it is edited, it is never the same. The original screenshot will always be better than any edited version of it.      17:12, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well if someone wants to make a image transparent I don't see why they can't, but I don't think they should upload it over the original file in the case of the Nikolai pic and such. 17:15, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

They shouldn't be able to because it looks bad! How can a screenshot look like a screenshot if most of the image is just taken away?      17:16, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
In some cases it looks good but in cases such as the Nikolai pic I agree with you, but they should still be able to make it transparent if they feel so, they should just upload it under another file name instead of replacing the original image. 17:19, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your thinking - if the original is a .jpg, then the transparent version will have to be uploaded as a .png, since .jpg does not support an alpha channel. If the original is .png, why can't people upload over the image? It's easier to undo that way.      17:22, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
Because lets say I upload an stunning image of a Hind with a nice backround and it is a .jpg and a user wants to crop out the Hind and make the backround transparent. Then instead of uploading over my pic lets say I named Hind.jpg they could upload it as Hind Transparent.png. I myself don't understand what you are trying to accomplish, banning .jpg from being modified to be transparent? 17:24, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
But they wouldn't be able to upload over your pic, since your original was a .jpg. .jpg images cannot be saved with transparency because the format does not support an alpha channel      17:28, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, but then what is the problem? The images are bad? We have tons of blurry images and we don't ban them, if the transparent images don't upload over the original .jpg and the original image with the backround is still on the wiki. Then why don't you just take the transparent image (if it honestly looks that bad) and take it out of the infobox and put it in the gallery. 17:32, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
.jpg as transparent = disaster. 17:29, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

All the way per nomination. 17:17, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

(Doesn't know shit about alpha channels) Based on the evidence presented by COD4, I agree. Carb 0Stop Censorship 17:32, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Per Cod4. $JPEG image + transparency = lolwut$ Sgt. S.S. 21:16, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

I like transparencies. They show the gun more and removes the sometimes-distracting background. Transparencies focus on the gun, and that's what the images are for, right? They showcase the gun, not it's environment as well. 03:10, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about eliminating them on character pictures I believe. 03:13, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
A crop of the image to centralise on the gun will do a much more effective job than removing the background and making the screenshot look unnatural. The in-game gun images are not vectors, they do not need to have their backgrounds removed.      05:09, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

You don't like my upload of Nikolai? :( 05:28, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I like that you put the effort into it. In fact I love that you tried to help out. But it's just that it doesn't look as good as the original in my opinion... it's not bad, it's just not as good, please don't take what I said personally.      05:33, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
It's ok, I don't take things seriously. 05:35, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I will agree with your jpg argument Callofduty4, but I must disagree with your other argument; I do think images that lack backgrounds, such as weapon images, are more to-the-point and are more appropriate for mainspace articles. Shotrocket6 05:52, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, vectors do a great job to focus on what the image is trying to show. If I want a photo of a MP5, I think that we need to remove the background that would distract the person that is seeing, just like 1337 mentioned. 06:02, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

The weapons in the game are not vectorised - they are raster textures (as seen by their .dds format) aligned in such a way so that it forms a 3d model. Removing the background does not turn it into a vector, the image is still the same, just with the background removed and any context and naturalness with it.      06:07, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
You know he means transparency. Smuff[citation provided] 21:35, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Question — Cod4, what are you trying to do here? Are you trying to enforce some sort of rule regarding the upload of alpha transparencies, or are you just trying to bring the matter to our attention? Sgt. S.S. 21:22, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Call to attention. Reason I didn't do this a long time ago is because everyone seemed to like them, so it was fine with me because other people liked them. Suddenly, it got out of hand.      04:51, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem here isn't transparencies themselves, but rather the fact you have people using Paint.NET trying to trans .jpgs. Honestly, our coverage of images has been pretty shit this game (most of the images are horribly compressed .jpgs), and trying to add transparency with a rubber looks awful. I'd be all for having a group similar to the news team, with myself, Hax 217, Joseph Tan and maybe Sam in the group, and having people do a trial couple of set images before they can join and do other images. Personally I'm of the belief of the article is about the gun, not the gun and that tree in the background.

Also, there's the problem where you get a bunch of image contributions from different people and so the backgrounds are all different, or people take images of guns pointing down at the grass (as with most of our Call of Duty 3 images) and the gun is impossible to see in the first place. I personally think the PPSh-41 article has a very tidy looking image gallery, I'd put that as thanks to transparency.

So yeah, as a tl;dr, delete/revert shitty trans and make a dedicated project group. Smuff[citation provided] 21:34, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Per Smuff. I created a forum on this but was deleted due to this one. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 01:25, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Screenshots should not be transparent, but 1st person views (unless the enviornment is being compared to the weapon) should either be transparent or aimed at the sky. Conqueror of all Zombies 22:37, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I very much like your thinking that the weapons should be aimed at the sky. In that way they look natural and also have a simple and non-cluttering background.      04:51, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
The background for transparent images in our galleries is blue. The sky is blue. What's the problem? Smuff[citation provided] 20:14, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that they are being doctored. They are not the original screen captures and hence are not original representations of the game. That's what images are supposed to be - original, visual representations. Doctoring the images removes the originality and naturalness from the image. That's an important part of it.      01:59, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
^that. Conqueror of all Zombies 04:28, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
What does it matter if they look the same? Shotrocket6 10:51, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
One looks natural and looks like the image is taken from the game, the other looks faked and tacky. Conqueror of all Zombies 01:44, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Smuff on this now. I agree with Cod4 that any .jpg should NOT be converted into a transparent .png, but for 1st person views of weapons, Iron Sights, Reloads. etc., I think that the transparencies show what each action/weapon looks like in ANY environment, not just that dark forest or bright desert or whatever. 3rd person screenshots, such as body shots and characters, should be left as is. So can we replace any shitty transparencies with professional ones made by the likes of Thumps, Smuff, and Joseph Tan? Sounds like a good idea, since I can't edit images for shit until I can download Photoshop CS5. 04:39, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Use The GIMP for the time being. It'd be good free practise for Photoshop, and may remove the need for Photoshop altogether.      15:22, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
Remember, that CS5 has capabilities that GIMP has, albeit a few crutches. Those tools, such as the magic eraser, should only be used minimally, as the do alter the image incorrectly sometimes. I also assume the only reason you want CS5 is for its magic eraser abilities. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 17:36, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
I am actually taking a Graphic Arts class and I finished the first semester of it, in which Photoshop was used extensively for image touch-up, using the brush to paint, etc., and I am familiar with it. The only thing is, its on the school computers only. So if I could download it, making transparencies would be easy for me. I have GIMP right now, but it feels really clunky to me compared to CS5. 23:50, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Cod4 on this one. Images that cut away the whole damn picture just ruins the whole page for me.

I have to agree with 1337 SPNKR. I don't see a problem with them as long as they're of good quality.

Just for a reference, this is a properly made transparent image. This one however is not, the edges are rough and there are remnants of the background. While it's not a total disaster, it's much better to keep the originals until a version with the background removed properly is made.      13:47, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with CoD, some of the Trans images being uploaded are not cut correctly and do not appear 'correct' due to jagged edges, we should be ensuring the Transed images at least appear correct before they are put into use. 19:41, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
...How is this any good when it was done with a rubber? Smuff[citation provided] 23:40, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for transparent weapon images, they make sense. But images like this are not acceptable. By removing the background, you remove the context in which the photo's subject is placed. 22:24, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

## BumpEdit

Okay, since this hasn't been commented on in a while, let's take a tally:

1. Leave transparency as it is.
2. Regulate the transparency of images, limiting it to only weapons while outlawing image modifications such as feathering and trans jobs done with the rubber tool.
3. Option 2 with a dedicated team for transing images with myself, Jospeh Tan and Hax 217 and any other admins who want to take part as senior members, anyone who wants to do image transparency can do a quick test image to join.
4. Outlaw future transparency jobs as a whole.

Just leave your name down unless you need to make a point.

#### Option 2Edit

1. Support — We don't need a user group just to manage these images, I'm pretty sure the admins can handle it themselves. Conqueror of all Zombies 02:56, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
2. Support — I agree with Coaz here. 22:09, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
3. Support — Seems like the best option. Poketape Talk 00:30, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

#### Option 3Edit

1. SupportSmuff[citation provided] 20:39, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
2. Support — Seems like the best way to go. Sgt. S.S. 20:46, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
3. Support — It seems good, but the "test image" thing seems kinda sketchy. Also, will transparencies made by other users be allowed if they are simply user images? Otherwise, I like. 21:01, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the test image thing would be subject to refinement, I'd probably get a semi-easy image to get people to add transparency to. That way it should really phase people and it should be easier to judge whether or not the candidate should improve their technique. Smuff[citation provided] 19:43, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Another nubby question. Will this new group be part of the Image Guardians, or be a whole new group in its entirety? 11:58, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
4. Support 05:51, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
5. Support — As long as this group includes all those with the skill to do this. Shotrocket6 10:36, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
6. Support 22:30, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
7. Support — Maybe part of TIG? - MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 17:57, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
8. Why not? — It will definitely help, and per anyone who mentioned TIG on this, tbh. 20:00, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
9. Support — But not as part of TIG, and if it is, as a more specific group, in which members have to prove themselves. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 03:26, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
1. Vehement Oppose — How about, "anyone can upload a trans image, if it's not good enough, it'll get reverted"? This is about on par with having a select group of users being able to edit certain mainspace articles, i.e. it's counterproductive. We can undo edits and revert images for a reason.      18:16, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
2. Vehement Oppose — Per above. 18:43, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
3. Vehement Oppose — Per Cod4. Also my point in 'other'. 18:58, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

#### OtherEdit

Only allow trans'ing of weapon images and menu icons. Trans'ing anything else is utterly pointless.      18:17, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Strong Support — Agreed^ 11:18, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Your sig was kinda messy too. Fixed the layout so it looks fine now. <3 x2 04:12, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support — Keeps it in context. Smuff[citation provided] 19:43, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support — Since there really is no reason for other images to be transparent. 03:22, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that bad template work, Mac. <3 04:11, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
Support — Per Cod4 20:34, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out feather effects are quite useful and I don't think they should be forbidden. 16:19, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
Could you elaborate a little, please? Sgt. S.S. 21:18, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
Well it can make an image look far more appealing whilst being barely noticeable. Some images are hard to cut all the side colour off, if a user can get as close as possible without damaging the gun the image will look alright, however couple it with a feather effect it can visually remove any of the specs of colour that may of been missed. Exceptions being any image doesn't need it done though, such as images from ELITE. 22:21, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Comment — Why not make a usergroup and allow anyone to upload them? It's not like a user that isn't in the usergroup will be uploading lots of transparencies anyway. Shotrocket6 00:52, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea. That way, we have a group of trustworthy transparency makers, and if someone else uploads a good one, we can keep it. If it's bad, it gets reverted. Therefore, if it's of good quality, it stays. 13:36, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
Anything else would be completely illogical. Shotrocket6 22:01, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
I don't really see the need for a user group of people who upload a certain type of image. Conqueror of all Zombies 02:11, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
Comment — Regarding my previous statement, I think some effects should be taken off, mainly the ones that make the gun look too different, I feel Feather, if used properly, does not take away from the guns appearance too greatly, however effects like this change the image too much away from the original. In short effects that alter the appearance too greatly should be the banned ones. 16:21, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that opposes are allowed on multivote circumstances such as this, as it would simply rally support for another option The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 02:02, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comment — Who would support both a usergroup and allowing anyone to upload the images? Shotrocket6 10:57, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion having a usergroup seems redundant, unless the usergroup happens to get any particular advantage, like the ability to delete old images they're no different to a normal user and as such should be treated like one. 13:18, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I suppose that renders the usergroup pointless. I'd rather allow all users to upload them in that case. Shotrocket6 20:57, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

## A new pointEdit

Who would support both a usergroup and allowing anyone to upload the images? I'd very much like to move this forum along and we can't come to a conclusion if nobody says anything. Shotrocket6 10:55, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

As I already stated before, I feel a usergroup is just redundant. However, I would vote to allow both, even if one is redundnat. 01:32, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

I do not think a usergroup is necessary.      01:55, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

After this time, I might have to agree with you. Shotrocket6 04:40, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Only trans'ing of weapon images and menu icons (and the odd exceptions) will be allowed. Smuff[citation provided] 19:15, February 20, 2012 (UTC)