topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Saturday December 14, 2024, 5:20 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: .png viewer which shows transparent .pngs but no frames whatsoever!  (Read 4993 times)

Chessnia

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
    • CHESSNIA
    • Donate to Member
I don't even know if such a thing exists!
I'm basically trying to find an image viewer which will let me view a transparent .png image wihout any frames whatsoever (most programs can reduces frames to a minimum, but they still show those frames! and then of course, they don't display a .png file correctly, they substitute the transparent color with black or white).
Does anybody know of a program that does this?

Cheers!

Chessnia

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
    • CHESSNIA
    • Donate to Member
Re: .png viewer which shows transparent .pngs but no frames whatsoever!
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2012, 07:23 PM »
Ok, I've done some more research and I've found one program that does it!
It's called "Impression: eyes" (impressioneyes) from utilheaven.com
I've downloaded the shareware version and it works incredibly well, I love it. (registration is only 3.99 anyway).

I'd never seen anything like it before. It's awesome! Now, what do I use it for? basically, sometimes I make small video files using some screen video capture on my computer, and this is a really dirty simple way to add interesting stuff, like call outs, etc. since the image can be dragged around. Really cool.

dragonmage

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: .png viewer which shows transparent .pngs but no frames whatsoever!
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2012, 11:14 PM »
I'd probably have used Rainmeter.

PhilB66

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,522
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member