Rupert Rawnsley

Thanks for the quick reponse guys! I'm glad you can reproduce the problem. I agree that, on it's own, a pixel with 0 alpha is the same as any other 0 alpha pixel, regardless of its RGB components. However, consider a 2 x 1 pixel image where the left pixel is opaque white and the right pixel is transparent white. If you resize this image to 1 x 1 pixels, the resulting pixel should be something like: RGBA = 255, 255, 255, 128 Now, if the right hand pixel had been transparent black instead, the pixel colour after resize should be: RGBA = 128, 128, 128, 128 These two are obviously visibily different. This effect may also occur when combining layers, but only with positive values of alpha.

You could consider renaming the product to something you can get the domain name for. Perhaps time it with a big functional release to maximise the impact / press coverage. It is also common for products to rebrand when they go from being free to being commercialised, so the customer thinks they are getting something more than they used to get for free. In general, I always thought the name .NET was a mistake for Microsoft. It is a particularly difficult search term, containing both a non-alphanumeric character and looking like a TLD.

If I colour a pixel opaque white (i.e. alpha value of 255) and then test the colour of that pixel using the "Color Picker" (dropper) tool, it reports the colour as opaque white. ...so far, so good... If I colour a pixel transparent white (i.e. white with an alpha value of 0) and then test the colour, it comes back as transparent black. Transparent white and transparent black are not the same colour. They look the same on their own, but they will behave differently when interacting with neighbouring pixels, for instance if the image is resampled to a different resolution. Am I missing a trick here? Am I confusing the action of the Color Picker with the actual color of the underlying pixel?