Been away awhile and lazy please help. :-P

I am sure this has been answered but instead of reading hours of useful but debated threads I would love a quick answer.

With the advent of PNG being available. does it null and void all the alpha channel work I used to do to get rid of the white halo, etc. Edges and in general tranparencies. And if you have an opinion if it looks SAME, GOOD, BAD, or UGLY - let me know that.

Thank you all. I will search and read more detailed answers when I get caught up.

Hey JDiva Ophelia

They have .png support now so you dont HAVE to do the .tga method. I tried it in photoshop and I uploaded the thing. I didn't have any white halo issues. It would vary depending on what you upload. Just something to include.

Sorry I didn't answer your question

Actually you answered better than I asked - in my haste I flubbed. When I said tga indeed I meant PNG - jeez and duh me! Thanks much!

I should probably add an entry in the FAQ section of the transparency guide. The question comes up a lot.

Anyway, no, it doesn't "null and void" anything you've done in the past. It simply adds another option.

PNG supports both alpha transparency (same work flow as TGA) and simple transparency (WYSIWYG). Simple transparency is obviously easier for people to understand right off the bat, but it offers less control. Alpha transparency, while less intuitive in the begging, is far more powerful. There are many situations for which keeping the transparency map separate from the color data offers tremendous advantages.

Also, since simple transparency treats transparency just like a color, sometimes you can end up not realizing that that "color" is present before you upload, and the result is you get a 32-bit texture where you intended to have a 24-bit. This is not only annoying, as it can cause sorting problems in the viewer, it's also more taxing on the system, since 32-bit textures use 33% more resources than 24-bit.

For best control, predictability, standardization, and power, stick with TGA. PNG's a great format, but TGA is still the most commonly used format in the industry.

Thanks, Chosen. Sounds like it is a great short cut but I ought to stick to the old way since I have already learned how to create the alpha channel (ok I know about 50% or less of what I should) and fight vigilant against the halos.

Something else to note though when uploading tga VS png is the fact that the opacity factor will vary greatly say if you have a semi transparent layer. tga will have and much lower (on the slider) opacity factor than png upon upload to SL making tga seem more tranparent, why? I have no idea. Possibly the way alpha channels are sorted in the final bake.

I'm not sure what you mean, Hunter. Can you explain further? What slider are you referring to? And how is it you feel it's affecting your uploads?

Exactly as I stated Chosen. Opacity slider on Layers(not Fill). one format is more transparent than the other imo even when creating the alpha channel gradient on it's own in Grayscale mode (say a Gray of 156,156,156,instead just the standard 0,0,0 mask).

Hi Hunter
Interesting observation. Just to clarify - are you meaning the SL sliders (like slider skin) or opacity sliders in your graphics program?

Photoshop, ofcourse , even The Gimp and most graphic editing programs.

My point in this being that one should look closely at the final result of the texture (yes , even in preview) there is a slight bit more tranparency in .tga than .png where solid parts would be even.

Though I agree that tga is more efficient in size it may not have the end result one seeks without specifically adjusting the Grayscale channel (alpha) by hand.

I make alot of custom windows and for example and have had varying results depending on complexity of the texture and the final format I upload it as, but I don't believe it's a bug or anomaly.

I've included a zip file for download or a tga, png, and the original psd templates