Splendid !
1 and 1 and 1 is 3
–
The Beatles
Proof is in the pudding, or the tasting thereof, as some say.
I just created three files :
my.iconset/icon_128x128.png
my.iconset/icon_128x128@x2.png
my.iconset/icon_256x256.png
I have created each picture with the width written in the center ; 128x128@2x in Photoshop with “128x2” on it, so I could recognize it from the 256 one.
After using iconutil to create the icns, it contains only 128 and 256. 128x128@2x has been skipped.
I believe that is what happens with your missing files, Richard.
For the app, things will be fine, since it will have the needed 256 to render 126 on Retina.
Thanks guys, but I don’t think that can be the problem, as I get 2 images at 512 pixels - therefore it seems to be creating the 256x256@2x and the 512x512 image.
I also get 2 images at the size of 256 - presumably the 128x128@2x and the 256x256 image.
This is why it seems to make no sense, and really need to know if this also happens for other people.
Could someone copy those image sizes from their app into a folder, and then use the terminal to create a .icns file via iconutil, and let me know if you get the same weird result as I do?
Thank you all in advance.
[quote=149559:@Richard Summers]Thanks guys, but I don’t think that can be the problem, as I get 2 images at 512 pixels - therefore it seems to be creating the 256x256@2x and the 512x512 image.
I also get 2 images at the size of 256 - presumably the 128x128@2x and the 256x256 image.
This is why it seems to make no sense, and really need to know if this also happens for other people.
Could someone copy those image sizes from their app into a folder, and then use the terminal to create a .icns file via iconutil, and let me know if you get the same weird result as I do?
Thank you all in advance.[/quote]
Would you be so kind to post your zipped files ? Simply talking about it does not make it any easy to help. Experimenting might.
Michel - here is a test zip, containing 10 example images, however - if you use these images, we will not know if there is a problem with THESE images, or a problem elsewhere?
Thanks for helping.
[quote=149569:@Richard Summers]Michel - here is a test zip, containing 10 example images, however - if you use these images, we will not know if there is a problem with THESE images, or a problem elsewhere?
Thanks for helping.[/quote]
I see the same thing as you, there are 10 files, and yet only 9 pictures. One of them has been skipped.
You should mark each of the pictures with its name, so you can find out which one has been skipped.
But from what I see, all necessary sizes are there for an application. So in practice, it should be OK.
I believe it is a 512x512 image which is missing.
I will watermark each image, and try again, to determine exactly which image dismissing.
Richard - Are your @2x files just the next size up renamed, or did you actually create 144DPI files? If they are just the next larger file renamed, iconutil may simply link them. If they are actually 144DPI, iconutil will add them physically.
Regardless, do your icons look correct on your desktop? If you open an icon-view Finder window and slide the size slider in the bottom right of the frame, do the icons scale smoothly? Is so, stop worrying and move on to your next great project :).
Tim, I started off with a 1024x1024 image. I then resized down using sips, to create all the smaller sizes.
If iconutil didn’t report any errors about missing or invalid files, and things look correct on your desktop, you’re good to go.
I discovered that creating an icns file with only the 512x512@2x file in it would give Finder what it needed. Apple’s scaling technology in Finder is pretty great.
Ok - I watermarked all my images before creating the .icns file - and here is what is included in the .icns file:
16x16
16x16@2x
32x32@2x
128x128
128x128@2x
256x256
512x512
512x512@2x
Again, unless you’re getting errors from iconutil or Finder’s display of the icons when resizing them isn’t clean, you’re good to go.
Thanks Tim, so are you saying I should create a 1024x1024 image at 144dpi, and then use JUST THAT, as it will be scaled down automatically by OS X??
No - the point of that example was that Finder is really good about resolving these types of invalid situations.
Don’t make Finder (or apps that use icons) work harder than they must. Your using sips to create the properly scaled images is the proper path. Additionally, if the sizes aren’t there, your app will be rejected by the MAS submissions bot if you head that way.
Hmmmm, just trying to fully understand this.
Does an app simply require one image for each size: (16x16, 32x32, 128x128, 256x256 and 512x512), or does it also need the @2x sizes??
There must be an official answer to this question, but I cannot find it. I understand that some people use various sizes and it works - but I would like to know the correct sizes required by Apple.
Thanks.
It needs the 2x sizes as outlined in that link that I posted above. That document is the official answer.
High Resolution Guidelines for OS X: optimizing for High Resolution
Thanks Tim, but this is what I mean by my resulting .icns file is NOT valid.
My .icns file (as you can see above) misses out the 32x32 and 256x256@2x images - therefore my created .icns file is not compliant with the guidelines. Therefore, even though the .icns file looks smooth when scaled - it is missing officially required icon sizes - hence why I am asking on here for advice.
Thanks for your help on this, but I still have no idea why 2 images are missing from my .icns file???
It creates 128x128@2x and also 256x256 - so Michel’s idea cannot be the reason why 1 image is missing.
It only refuses to incorporate 1 or 2 images??
If you run the iconutil command in a terminal directly, does it output any errors?
No errors, but the guidelines say that 10 images are required, not 8, so my .icns file has 2 required icons missing.
https://discussions.apple.com/message/27257136#27257136
I opened a case for you since this is making me mad also 