Invisible PNG image layer that is only visible as a backgroundWeird Crosshair Gnome DesktopOpen Source image...

Why do people think Winterfell crypts is the safest place for women, children & old people?

Did war bonds have better investment alternatives during WWII?

How to begin with a paragraph in latex

In search of the origins of term censor, I hit a dead end stuck with the greek term, to censor, λογοκρίνω

Is it OK if I do not take the receipt in Germany?

Arriving in Atlanta (after US Preclearance in Dublin). Will I go through TSA security in Atlanta to transfer to a connecting flight?

Will I be more secure with my own router behind my ISP's router?

How long can a nation maintain a technological edge over the rest of the world?

What is the ongoing value of the Kanban board to the developers as opposed to management

Test if all elements of a Foldable are the same

How would it unbalance gameplay to rule that Weapon Master allows for picking a fighting style?

Why isn't everyone flabbergasted about Bran's "gift"?

Is there a possibility to generate a list dynamically in Latex?

What is the numbering system used for the DSN dishes?

What does the black goddess statue do and what is it?

Suing a Police Officer Instead of the Police Department

Writing a T-SQL stored procedure to receive 4 numbers and insert them into a table

Feather, the Redeemed and Dire Fleet Daredevil

false 'Security alert' from Google - every login generates mails from 'no-reply@accounts.google.com'

What is a 'Key' in computer science?

What does こした mean?

Specify the range of GridLines

Processing ADC conversion result: DMA vs Processor Registers

How would you suggest I follow up with coworkers about our deadline that's today?



Invisible PNG image layer that is only visible as a background


Weird Crosshair Gnome DesktopOpen Source image editor that handles PNG Alpha transparency correctly?resize an image in a single layer in photoshopMaking a new background layer from existing layer in PhotoshopPhotoshop: Create solid image with a transparent shape in itCreating blurred PNG image to lay over text link“Select forward layer” keyboard shortcut - include invisible layersOpen image as a layerHow to export only a single layer as image?TeamViewer is causing problems on my PC, sometime the Graphic software got corrupted and today my user profile got corrupted alsoHow to make background layer same length as text dynamically






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}







48















I have recently came across a very peculiar image, with strange properties. The image is in PNG format and just shows a simple bird with a transparent background. My friend sent me the image with simple instructions just to save it and set it as my background.



Original image with just the seagull



After setting the image as my background a second image appears to show that in fact the seagull standing on a weapon:



Background image with a secret layer?



This at first got me very curious to the nature of the image and how to make such an image. I have opened the image in Photoshop and nothing out of the ordinary appears - the image is still the same as the transparent seagull, there is no hidden layers or masks to make it invisible. After checking the image in Photoshop, I had thought Windows made changes to the file when setting it as my desktop background - after navigating to %AppData%MicrosoftWindowsThemes the image appeared to be the same.



Why does this image show a separate hidden layer or a completely separate image when set as a Windows Desktop Background compared to being viewed or edited in Photoshop?









share




















  • 6





    Open it with XnView, click "Remove Alpha Channel" , and you'll see the full image. Windows 7 converts backgrounds to JPEG, losing transparency answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-desktop/…

    – leonbloy
    Jun 30 '17 at 14:01


















48















I have recently came across a very peculiar image, with strange properties. The image is in PNG format and just shows a simple bird with a transparent background. My friend sent me the image with simple instructions just to save it and set it as my background.



Original image with just the seagull



After setting the image as my background a second image appears to show that in fact the seagull standing on a weapon:



Background image with a secret layer?



This at first got me very curious to the nature of the image and how to make such an image. I have opened the image in Photoshop and nothing out of the ordinary appears - the image is still the same as the transparent seagull, there is no hidden layers or masks to make it invisible. After checking the image in Photoshop, I had thought Windows made changes to the file when setting it as my desktop background - after navigating to %AppData%MicrosoftWindowsThemes the image appeared to be the same.



Why does this image show a separate hidden layer or a completely separate image when set as a Windows Desktop Background compared to being viewed or edited in Photoshop?









share




















  • 6





    Open it with XnView, click "Remove Alpha Channel" , and you'll see the full image. Windows 7 converts backgrounds to JPEG, losing transparency answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-desktop/…

    – leonbloy
    Jun 30 '17 at 14:01














48












48








48


18






I have recently came across a very peculiar image, with strange properties. The image is in PNG format and just shows a simple bird with a transparent background. My friend sent me the image with simple instructions just to save it and set it as my background.



Original image with just the seagull



After setting the image as my background a second image appears to show that in fact the seagull standing on a weapon:



Background image with a secret layer?



This at first got me very curious to the nature of the image and how to make such an image. I have opened the image in Photoshop and nothing out of the ordinary appears - the image is still the same as the transparent seagull, there is no hidden layers or masks to make it invisible. After checking the image in Photoshop, I had thought Windows made changes to the file when setting it as my desktop background - after navigating to %AppData%MicrosoftWindowsThemes the image appeared to be the same.



Why does this image show a separate hidden layer or a completely separate image when set as a Windows Desktop Background compared to being viewed or edited in Photoshop?









share
















I have recently came across a very peculiar image, with strange properties. The image is in PNG format and just shows a simple bird with a transparent background. My friend sent me the image with simple instructions just to save it and set it as my background.



Original image with just the seagull



After setting the image as my background a second image appears to show that in fact the seagull standing on a weapon:



Background image with a secret layer?



This at first got me very curious to the nature of the image and how to make such an image. I have opened the image in Photoshop and nothing out of the ordinary appears - the image is still the same as the transparent seagull, there is no hidden layers or masks to make it invisible. After checking the image in Photoshop, I had thought Windows made changes to the file when setting it as my desktop background - after navigating to %AppData%MicrosoftWindowsThemes the image appeared to be the same.



Why does this image show a separate hidden layer or a completely separate image when set as a Windows Desktop Background compared to being viewed or edited in Photoshop?







windows adobe-photoshop png graphics-editing





share














share












share



share








edited 9 hours ago









phuclv

11.3k64498




11.3k64498










asked Jun 29 '17 at 20:53









Callum CarmichealCallum Carmicheal

397511




397511








  • 6





    Open it with XnView, click "Remove Alpha Channel" , and you'll see the full image. Windows 7 converts backgrounds to JPEG, losing transparency answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-desktop/…

    – leonbloy
    Jun 30 '17 at 14:01














  • 6





    Open it with XnView, click "Remove Alpha Channel" , and you'll see the full image. Windows 7 converts backgrounds to JPEG, losing transparency answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-desktop/…

    – leonbloy
    Jun 30 '17 at 14:01








6




6





Open it with XnView, click "Remove Alpha Channel" , and you'll see the full image. Windows 7 converts backgrounds to JPEG, losing transparency answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-desktop/…

– leonbloy
Jun 30 '17 at 14:01





Open it with XnView, click "Remove Alpha Channel" , and you'll see the full image. Windows 7 converts backgrounds to JPEG, losing transparency answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-desktop/…

– leonbloy
Jun 30 '17 at 14:01










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















59














I'm guessing it's what was called "Dirty Transparency" in this article from Smashing Magazine.



Essentially any color in transparent PNGs can be described by an RGBA value, where RGB stands for the Red, Green and Blue channels and A stands for Alpha. The "invisible" colors can have any RGB values + 0 Alpha, meaning that the color will retain the original information, but render as transparent because its alpha is set to 0.



Why would you want to store the RGB values when Alpha is being used? So you can get smooth edges and transparent colors—unlike jagged edges in transparent-background GIFs. Transparency in PNG can go from 0 to 255, in GIFs it's either 100% transparent or opaque. To render something at, let's say, 50% transparency, you'll still need to know the RGB values, hence the value is stored. Most image editor software discard that RGB information when saving a fully transparent color, Photoshop included.



I can't speak for CC versions, but to see the "invisible" colors in older Photoshop versions you'll need a plugin. Pick one: Photofreebies or SuperPNG. SuperPNG seems more recent and less cluttered.



Why does the trick work? Wallpapers must be opaque because there's nothing "behind" them to show through, right? My guess is that Windows discards the Alpha channel information, revealing the hidden RGB values in the process.





share





















  • 6





    i just tried what you said by removed the transparency layer mask (alpha channel), that i had never occurred to me - by doing that i was able to replicate the effect. This is a very cool way of making backgrounds i think i will be exploring its trolling capabilities very soon :D

    – Callum Carmicheal
    Jun 29 '17 at 22:50






  • 15





    I would say this is a bug in Windows. If the alpha value of a pixel is 0, then the pixel is transparant and the RGB values shouldn't matter. Windows should render an image that contains transparancy on top of something else, for example a white background.

    – Paul
    Jun 29 '17 at 23:32






  • 5





    @Paul. Agreed, Except it would be the defined background color for the desktop, the same color that is used if the image is not stretched or tiled and is too small to fill the desktop. The metaphor is that the wallpaper is on top of a surface or wall of a solid color.

    – trlkly
    Jun 30 '17 at 2:46






  • 3





    I would be very surprised if Adobe Photoshop was in need for a plug-in to achieve this - I'd expect it to offer controls similar to GIMP, e.g. adjusting the alpha values by curves or levels tools (that's only two of the many ways to make the transparent parts visible).

    – Michael Schumacher
    Jun 30 '17 at 9:47






  • 2





    @MichaelSchumacher You'd be surprised by how Photoshop can be lacking in certain areas. To be fair I have no idea if the current CC version supports it already. I decided to stick with my perpetually-licensed PS, so my version is near obsolete by now.

    – Rhaenys
    Jun 30 '17 at 12:22



















13














To add to Nihal's answer, this can be reproduced by using the "anti-erase" brush in the GIMP. The Erase brush can add or remove an alpha channel if the image is using a format that supports it, (hold Alt to swap between erasing and anti-erasing).



For Krita, you can do this: Layer > Split Alpha > Alpha into Mask. After doing that you can hide or delete the Transparency Mask 1 channel that was just created and you'll see the full image.



Since the Windows background can't have anything behind it, it's probably just stripping out the transparency and displaying the image without it, (quick and dirty 32 bit image to 24 bit from the looks of it).





share

































    3














    One point of clarification: This is not a bug, it is specified behavior in the png specification. Specifically the specification states that if a viewer or converter cannot understand transparency or transparency is not appropriate for a context or use the alpha channel may be ignored. Further the specification calls for all image generators to set the transparent colors so that the image is useful if the alpha channel is ignored. (my paraphrase, I has been a couple years since I read the spec.)





    share



















    • 1





      Could you please try and find the relevant passage(s) from the specification? Because I cannot find this in w3.org/TR/PNG. Thanks!

      – Marnix Klooster
      Jul 2 '17 at 5:11



















    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    59














    I'm guessing it's what was called "Dirty Transparency" in this article from Smashing Magazine.



    Essentially any color in transparent PNGs can be described by an RGBA value, where RGB stands for the Red, Green and Blue channels and A stands for Alpha. The "invisible" colors can have any RGB values + 0 Alpha, meaning that the color will retain the original information, but render as transparent because its alpha is set to 0.



    Why would you want to store the RGB values when Alpha is being used? So you can get smooth edges and transparent colors—unlike jagged edges in transparent-background GIFs. Transparency in PNG can go from 0 to 255, in GIFs it's either 100% transparent or opaque. To render something at, let's say, 50% transparency, you'll still need to know the RGB values, hence the value is stored. Most image editor software discard that RGB information when saving a fully transparent color, Photoshop included.



    I can't speak for CC versions, but to see the "invisible" colors in older Photoshop versions you'll need a plugin. Pick one: Photofreebies or SuperPNG. SuperPNG seems more recent and less cluttered.



    Why does the trick work? Wallpapers must be opaque because there's nothing "behind" them to show through, right? My guess is that Windows discards the Alpha channel information, revealing the hidden RGB values in the process.





    share





















    • 6





      i just tried what you said by removed the transparency layer mask (alpha channel), that i had never occurred to me - by doing that i was able to replicate the effect. This is a very cool way of making backgrounds i think i will be exploring its trolling capabilities very soon :D

      – Callum Carmicheal
      Jun 29 '17 at 22:50






    • 15





      I would say this is a bug in Windows. If the alpha value of a pixel is 0, then the pixel is transparant and the RGB values shouldn't matter. Windows should render an image that contains transparancy on top of something else, for example a white background.

      – Paul
      Jun 29 '17 at 23:32






    • 5





      @Paul. Agreed, Except it would be the defined background color for the desktop, the same color that is used if the image is not stretched or tiled and is too small to fill the desktop. The metaphor is that the wallpaper is on top of a surface or wall of a solid color.

      – trlkly
      Jun 30 '17 at 2:46






    • 3





      I would be very surprised if Adobe Photoshop was in need for a plug-in to achieve this - I'd expect it to offer controls similar to GIMP, e.g. adjusting the alpha values by curves or levels tools (that's only two of the many ways to make the transparent parts visible).

      – Michael Schumacher
      Jun 30 '17 at 9:47






    • 2





      @MichaelSchumacher You'd be surprised by how Photoshop can be lacking in certain areas. To be fair I have no idea if the current CC version supports it already. I decided to stick with my perpetually-licensed PS, so my version is near obsolete by now.

      – Rhaenys
      Jun 30 '17 at 12:22
















    59














    I'm guessing it's what was called "Dirty Transparency" in this article from Smashing Magazine.



    Essentially any color in transparent PNGs can be described by an RGBA value, where RGB stands for the Red, Green and Blue channels and A stands for Alpha. The "invisible" colors can have any RGB values + 0 Alpha, meaning that the color will retain the original information, but render as transparent because its alpha is set to 0.



    Why would you want to store the RGB values when Alpha is being used? So you can get smooth edges and transparent colors—unlike jagged edges in transparent-background GIFs. Transparency in PNG can go from 0 to 255, in GIFs it's either 100% transparent or opaque. To render something at, let's say, 50% transparency, you'll still need to know the RGB values, hence the value is stored. Most image editor software discard that RGB information when saving a fully transparent color, Photoshop included.



    I can't speak for CC versions, but to see the "invisible" colors in older Photoshop versions you'll need a plugin. Pick one: Photofreebies or SuperPNG. SuperPNG seems more recent and less cluttered.



    Why does the trick work? Wallpapers must be opaque because there's nothing "behind" them to show through, right? My guess is that Windows discards the Alpha channel information, revealing the hidden RGB values in the process.





    share





















    • 6





      i just tried what you said by removed the transparency layer mask (alpha channel), that i had never occurred to me - by doing that i was able to replicate the effect. This is a very cool way of making backgrounds i think i will be exploring its trolling capabilities very soon :D

      – Callum Carmicheal
      Jun 29 '17 at 22:50






    • 15





      I would say this is a bug in Windows. If the alpha value of a pixel is 0, then the pixel is transparant and the RGB values shouldn't matter. Windows should render an image that contains transparancy on top of something else, for example a white background.

      – Paul
      Jun 29 '17 at 23:32






    • 5





      @Paul. Agreed, Except it would be the defined background color for the desktop, the same color that is used if the image is not stretched or tiled and is too small to fill the desktop. The metaphor is that the wallpaper is on top of a surface or wall of a solid color.

      – trlkly
      Jun 30 '17 at 2:46






    • 3





      I would be very surprised if Adobe Photoshop was in need for a plug-in to achieve this - I'd expect it to offer controls similar to GIMP, e.g. adjusting the alpha values by curves or levels tools (that's only two of the many ways to make the transparent parts visible).

      – Michael Schumacher
      Jun 30 '17 at 9:47






    • 2





      @MichaelSchumacher You'd be surprised by how Photoshop can be lacking in certain areas. To be fair I have no idea if the current CC version supports it already. I decided to stick with my perpetually-licensed PS, so my version is near obsolete by now.

      – Rhaenys
      Jun 30 '17 at 12:22














    59












    59








    59







    I'm guessing it's what was called "Dirty Transparency" in this article from Smashing Magazine.



    Essentially any color in transparent PNGs can be described by an RGBA value, where RGB stands for the Red, Green and Blue channels and A stands for Alpha. The "invisible" colors can have any RGB values + 0 Alpha, meaning that the color will retain the original information, but render as transparent because its alpha is set to 0.



    Why would you want to store the RGB values when Alpha is being used? So you can get smooth edges and transparent colors—unlike jagged edges in transparent-background GIFs. Transparency in PNG can go from 0 to 255, in GIFs it's either 100% transparent or opaque. To render something at, let's say, 50% transparency, you'll still need to know the RGB values, hence the value is stored. Most image editor software discard that RGB information when saving a fully transparent color, Photoshop included.



    I can't speak for CC versions, but to see the "invisible" colors in older Photoshop versions you'll need a plugin. Pick one: Photofreebies or SuperPNG. SuperPNG seems more recent and less cluttered.



    Why does the trick work? Wallpapers must be opaque because there's nothing "behind" them to show through, right? My guess is that Windows discards the Alpha channel information, revealing the hidden RGB values in the process.





    share















    I'm guessing it's what was called "Dirty Transparency" in this article from Smashing Magazine.



    Essentially any color in transparent PNGs can be described by an RGBA value, where RGB stands for the Red, Green and Blue channels and A stands for Alpha. The "invisible" colors can have any RGB values + 0 Alpha, meaning that the color will retain the original information, but render as transparent because its alpha is set to 0.



    Why would you want to store the RGB values when Alpha is being used? So you can get smooth edges and transparent colors—unlike jagged edges in transparent-background GIFs. Transparency in PNG can go from 0 to 255, in GIFs it's either 100% transparent or opaque. To render something at, let's say, 50% transparency, you'll still need to know the RGB values, hence the value is stored. Most image editor software discard that RGB information when saving a fully transparent color, Photoshop included.



    I can't speak for CC versions, but to see the "invisible" colors in older Photoshop versions you'll need a plugin. Pick one: Photofreebies or SuperPNG. SuperPNG seems more recent and less cluttered.



    Why does the trick work? Wallpapers must be opaque because there's nothing "behind" them to show through, right? My guess is that Windows discards the Alpha channel information, revealing the hidden RGB values in the process.






    share













    share


    share








    edited Jun 30 '17 at 15:36









    Dave

    23.4k84463




    23.4k84463










    answered Jun 29 '17 at 21:18









    RhaenysRhaenys

    602812




    602812








    • 6





      i just tried what you said by removed the transparency layer mask (alpha channel), that i had never occurred to me - by doing that i was able to replicate the effect. This is a very cool way of making backgrounds i think i will be exploring its trolling capabilities very soon :D

      – Callum Carmicheal
      Jun 29 '17 at 22:50






    • 15





      I would say this is a bug in Windows. If the alpha value of a pixel is 0, then the pixel is transparant and the RGB values shouldn't matter. Windows should render an image that contains transparancy on top of something else, for example a white background.

      – Paul
      Jun 29 '17 at 23:32






    • 5





      @Paul. Agreed, Except it would be the defined background color for the desktop, the same color that is used if the image is not stretched or tiled and is too small to fill the desktop. The metaphor is that the wallpaper is on top of a surface or wall of a solid color.

      – trlkly
      Jun 30 '17 at 2:46






    • 3





      I would be very surprised if Adobe Photoshop was in need for a plug-in to achieve this - I'd expect it to offer controls similar to GIMP, e.g. adjusting the alpha values by curves or levels tools (that's only two of the many ways to make the transparent parts visible).

      – Michael Schumacher
      Jun 30 '17 at 9:47






    • 2





      @MichaelSchumacher You'd be surprised by how Photoshop can be lacking in certain areas. To be fair I have no idea if the current CC version supports it already. I decided to stick with my perpetually-licensed PS, so my version is near obsolete by now.

      – Rhaenys
      Jun 30 '17 at 12:22














    • 6





      i just tried what you said by removed the transparency layer mask (alpha channel), that i had never occurred to me - by doing that i was able to replicate the effect. This is a very cool way of making backgrounds i think i will be exploring its trolling capabilities very soon :D

      – Callum Carmicheal
      Jun 29 '17 at 22:50






    • 15





      I would say this is a bug in Windows. If the alpha value of a pixel is 0, then the pixel is transparant and the RGB values shouldn't matter. Windows should render an image that contains transparancy on top of something else, for example a white background.

      – Paul
      Jun 29 '17 at 23:32






    • 5





      @Paul. Agreed, Except it would be the defined background color for the desktop, the same color that is used if the image is not stretched or tiled and is too small to fill the desktop. The metaphor is that the wallpaper is on top of a surface or wall of a solid color.

      – trlkly
      Jun 30 '17 at 2:46






    • 3





      I would be very surprised if Adobe Photoshop was in need for a plug-in to achieve this - I'd expect it to offer controls similar to GIMP, e.g. adjusting the alpha values by curves or levels tools (that's only two of the many ways to make the transparent parts visible).

      – Michael Schumacher
      Jun 30 '17 at 9:47






    • 2





      @MichaelSchumacher You'd be surprised by how Photoshop can be lacking in certain areas. To be fair I have no idea if the current CC version supports it already. I decided to stick with my perpetually-licensed PS, so my version is near obsolete by now.

      – Rhaenys
      Jun 30 '17 at 12:22








    6




    6





    i just tried what you said by removed the transparency layer mask (alpha channel), that i had never occurred to me - by doing that i was able to replicate the effect. This is a very cool way of making backgrounds i think i will be exploring its trolling capabilities very soon :D

    – Callum Carmicheal
    Jun 29 '17 at 22:50





    i just tried what you said by removed the transparency layer mask (alpha channel), that i had never occurred to me - by doing that i was able to replicate the effect. This is a very cool way of making backgrounds i think i will be exploring its trolling capabilities very soon :D

    – Callum Carmicheal
    Jun 29 '17 at 22:50




    15




    15





    I would say this is a bug in Windows. If the alpha value of a pixel is 0, then the pixel is transparant and the RGB values shouldn't matter. Windows should render an image that contains transparancy on top of something else, for example a white background.

    – Paul
    Jun 29 '17 at 23:32





    I would say this is a bug in Windows. If the alpha value of a pixel is 0, then the pixel is transparant and the RGB values shouldn't matter. Windows should render an image that contains transparancy on top of something else, for example a white background.

    – Paul
    Jun 29 '17 at 23:32




    5




    5





    @Paul. Agreed, Except it would be the defined background color for the desktop, the same color that is used if the image is not stretched or tiled and is too small to fill the desktop. The metaphor is that the wallpaper is on top of a surface or wall of a solid color.

    – trlkly
    Jun 30 '17 at 2:46





    @Paul. Agreed, Except it would be the defined background color for the desktop, the same color that is used if the image is not stretched or tiled and is too small to fill the desktop. The metaphor is that the wallpaper is on top of a surface or wall of a solid color.

    – trlkly
    Jun 30 '17 at 2:46




    3




    3





    I would be very surprised if Adobe Photoshop was in need for a plug-in to achieve this - I'd expect it to offer controls similar to GIMP, e.g. adjusting the alpha values by curves or levels tools (that's only two of the many ways to make the transparent parts visible).

    – Michael Schumacher
    Jun 30 '17 at 9:47





    I would be very surprised if Adobe Photoshop was in need for a plug-in to achieve this - I'd expect it to offer controls similar to GIMP, e.g. adjusting the alpha values by curves or levels tools (that's only two of the many ways to make the transparent parts visible).

    – Michael Schumacher
    Jun 30 '17 at 9:47




    2




    2





    @MichaelSchumacher You'd be surprised by how Photoshop can be lacking in certain areas. To be fair I have no idea if the current CC version supports it already. I decided to stick with my perpetually-licensed PS, so my version is near obsolete by now.

    – Rhaenys
    Jun 30 '17 at 12:22





    @MichaelSchumacher You'd be surprised by how Photoshop can be lacking in certain areas. To be fair I have no idea if the current CC version supports it already. I decided to stick with my perpetually-licensed PS, so my version is near obsolete by now.

    – Rhaenys
    Jun 30 '17 at 12:22













    13














    To add to Nihal's answer, this can be reproduced by using the "anti-erase" brush in the GIMP. The Erase brush can add or remove an alpha channel if the image is using a format that supports it, (hold Alt to swap between erasing and anti-erasing).



    For Krita, you can do this: Layer > Split Alpha > Alpha into Mask. After doing that you can hide or delete the Transparency Mask 1 channel that was just created and you'll see the full image.



    Since the Windows background can't have anything behind it, it's probably just stripping out the transparency and displaying the image without it, (quick and dirty 32 bit image to 24 bit from the looks of it).





    share






























      13














      To add to Nihal's answer, this can be reproduced by using the "anti-erase" brush in the GIMP. The Erase brush can add or remove an alpha channel if the image is using a format that supports it, (hold Alt to swap between erasing and anti-erasing).



      For Krita, you can do this: Layer > Split Alpha > Alpha into Mask. After doing that you can hide or delete the Transparency Mask 1 channel that was just created and you'll see the full image.



      Since the Windows background can't have anything behind it, it's probably just stripping out the transparency and displaying the image without it, (quick and dirty 32 bit image to 24 bit from the looks of it).





      share




























        13












        13








        13







        To add to Nihal's answer, this can be reproduced by using the "anti-erase" brush in the GIMP. The Erase brush can add or remove an alpha channel if the image is using a format that supports it, (hold Alt to swap between erasing and anti-erasing).



        For Krita, you can do this: Layer > Split Alpha > Alpha into Mask. After doing that you can hide or delete the Transparency Mask 1 channel that was just created and you'll see the full image.



        Since the Windows background can't have anything behind it, it's probably just stripping out the transparency and displaying the image without it, (quick and dirty 32 bit image to 24 bit from the looks of it).





        share















        To add to Nihal's answer, this can be reproduced by using the "anti-erase" brush in the GIMP. The Erase brush can add or remove an alpha channel if the image is using a format that supports it, (hold Alt to swap between erasing and anti-erasing).



        For Krita, you can do this: Layer > Split Alpha > Alpha into Mask. After doing that you can hide or delete the Transparency Mask 1 channel that was just created and you'll see the full image.



        Since the Windows background can't have anything behind it, it's probably just stripping out the transparency and displaying the image without it, (quick and dirty 32 bit image to 24 bit from the looks of it).






        share













        share


        share








        edited Jun 30 '17 at 15:25









        Steven M. Vascellaro

        4,8711854103




        4,8711854103










        answered Jun 30 '17 at 3:38









        BlergBlerg

        984313




        984313























            3














            One point of clarification: This is not a bug, it is specified behavior in the png specification. Specifically the specification states that if a viewer or converter cannot understand transparency or transparency is not appropriate for a context or use the alpha channel may be ignored. Further the specification calls for all image generators to set the transparent colors so that the image is useful if the alpha channel is ignored. (my paraphrase, I has been a couple years since I read the spec.)





            share



















            • 1





              Could you please try and find the relevant passage(s) from the specification? Because I cannot find this in w3.org/TR/PNG. Thanks!

              – Marnix Klooster
              Jul 2 '17 at 5:11
















            3














            One point of clarification: This is not a bug, it is specified behavior in the png specification. Specifically the specification states that if a viewer or converter cannot understand transparency or transparency is not appropriate for a context or use the alpha channel may be ignored. Further the specification calls for all image generators to set the transparent colors so that the image is useful if the alpha channel is ignored. (my paraphrase, I has been a couple years since I read the spec.)





            share



















            • 1





              Could you please try and find the relevant passage(s) from the specification? Because I cannot find this in w3.org/TR/PNG. Thanks!

              – Marnix Klooster
              Jul 2 '17 at 5:11














            3












            3








            3







            One point of clarification: This is not a bug, it is specified behavior in the png specification. Specifically the specification states that if a viewer or converter cannot understand transparency or transparency is not appropriate for a context or use the alpha channel may be ignored. Further the specification calls for all image generators to set the transparent colors so that the image is useful if the alpha channel is ignored. (my paraphrase, I has been a couple years since I read the spec.)





            share













            One point of clarification: This is not a bug, it is specified behavior in the png specification. Specifically the specification states that if a viewer or converter cannot understand transparency or transparency is not appropriate for a context or use the alpha channel may be ignored. Further the specification calls for all image generators to set the transparent colors so that the image is useful if the alpha channel is ignored. (my paraphrase, I has been a couple years since I read the spec.)






            share











            share


            share










            answered Jul 1 '17 at 15:50









            hildredhildred

            496312




            496312








            • 1





              Could you please try and find the relevant passage(s) from the specification? Because I cannot find this in w3.org/TR/PNG. Thanks!

              – Marnix Klooster
              Jul 2 '17 at 5:11














            • 1





              Could you please try and find the relevant passage(s) from the specification? Because I cannot find this in w3.org/TR/PNG. Thanks!

              – Marnix Klooster
              Jul 2 '17 at 5:11








            1




            1





            Could you please try and find the relevant passage(s) from the specification? Because I cannot find this in w3.org/TR/PNG. Thanks!

            – Marnix Klooster
            Jul 2 '17 at 5:11





            Could you please try and find the relevant passage(s) from the specification? Because I cannot find this in w3.org/TR/PNG. Thanks!

            – Marnix Klooster
            Jul 2 '17 at 5:11



            Popular posts from this blog

            Cannot install PyQt5 The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCannot install tcpreplay 3.4.4cannot...

            Kapp-Putsch Acontecimentos | Outros artigos | Menu de navegação

            Why did early computer designers eschew integers? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat register...