silhouette

I agree with silhouette. These guys scaffolded a rails project and and then slapped bootstrap on it.

It's a fucking silhouette made up of 20 pixels. It's a person on a roof who was likely watching the event.

Yeah, I used to love the iPod adverts with the hip, trendy silhouette dancing away. Then you would see the average user on the train.

Com/silhouette? cat=Products - it's a parabolic dish inside a radome like this.

Shape and silhouette are closely related. With simple icons, like the Phone app, the background is not overly distracting.

The Secure Chat logo uses something more like a natural human silhouette. The ratios of the arc to square are different.

Honeslty, Windows Phone's UI is a neat concept and very modern and stylish, but I've been using a WP7 phone for over two years now and I have to say - the silhouette icon approach sucks. Merging icons and widgets?

They all blend together, with only the upper-left image to tell them apart - and sticking them all into the same circle makes those images all have the same silhouette. The first appearance was cool, it was distinctive and unique.

There regularly are times when I wouldn't want to do without him, but most of the time, I'd like to make a hole in the window with his exact silhouette. More than one of his coworkers have mentioned something along the lines of "can't we fire him 4 weeks out of 5 ?"

Consider the 1984 Mac ad, or the iPod silhouette ads. They weren't telling you to buy an iPod because it could hold more songs, they were telling you that if you had an iPod, you could be one of the happy beautiful people dancing on a soundstage.

He replaced those ads with the iconic silhouette iTunes ads. Oh, also: "Designed by Apple in California" was brilliant in its subtlety, on the back of the iPhone if you looked hard enough.

Yet these self-same devices, to represent "phone", use the silhouette of the handset from an old Bell Telephone landline model, thirty years after those phones went out of fashion. To even the younger generation, that shape means "phone", even if it doesn't look like a phone.

Often can often look at just the silhouette of a paragraph, a method or even a class to be able to tell you what the code does. I tend to do "one thing per paragraph" -- which when I read code means that I can skip past the code I am not interested in at the moment quickly.

> My guess is the machines could be modified to change the background color behind the scanned person's silhouette. For a billion dollars, I would have demanded, at minimum, that modifications to make the machines actually work be included.

Valve takes it a step further and states that a character must be identifiable by only its silhouette - including orientation and carried weapons. It's a pretty good read, even with just a passing interest in game & character art.

I'm thinking specifically about a silhouette photograph I shot of my son. Is there a way to validate the manufacturability of an arbitrary layer set?

You could get a reasonable 1bpp silhouette out of a 2716 and a couple of lenses out of a broken pair of binoculars. You had to program it first then use the sun to erase the picture onto it which meant exposure times in the order of 20 mins on a sunny day to flip enough bits plus some figuring out of how the cells were organised.

Glenz vectors: use blitter to draw lines & blit into bitplanes with polygon filling mode, you'd need at least three bitplanes, one for the silhouette of the shape, one for the front-facing faces and one for the back-facing faces, then set up the palette so it's "just right" for the combination of planes to give a semi-transparent effect. A site that goes into old school amiga demo techniques would be awesome!