4 ms·
Why oh why can't we just settle on 'transparency' as the best word to use in this space? Its more mentally simple than 'opacity' ('transparent' is a more commo
by twelvechairs 5y ago
Why oh why can't we just settle on 'transparency' as the best word to use in this space?
Its more mentally simple than 'opacity' ('transparent' is a more common word than 'opaque' to hear used in the real world - as 'opaque' is the default of most objects/surfaces, having 'transparency' is a special property that needs to be described), more correct than 'translucency' (also used commonly including in this thread but in real definition means an object that passes light but not a clear image of what is behind, like a frosted window - light is not travelling in a straight line but is being bent) or 'transmissivity' which the author uses (needlessly making it more technical and opaque to the end user - and actually less specific as transmissivity could be translucency also)
- idle_zealot 5y agoWe use “opacity” when referring to the alpha channel because that’s what the alpha channel measures. A high alpha value makes the pixel more opaque, a low value makes it more transparent (less opaque). Saying that a pixel with “transparency 0” is transparent and one with “transparency 255” is opaque would be far more confusing.
- twelvechairs 5y agoYes and no. Yes opacity is what is in the alpha channel. But all im saying is that it would be easiest for all to think of as inverse of transparency, and this is how documentation should describe it, otherwise people make weird assumptions like OPs. Its stored as opacity rather than transparency for minor performant reasons not because its a different concept or better way to think of it
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]