You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Exit logo displayed at 512px in v0.14.2.AF (was 256px in AE) #263
In v0.14.2.AF, the exit logo is always displayed at 512px. In v0.14.2.AE it was displayed at 256px. A 128px source image (e.g. the default os_arch) is upscaled 4× with what looks like bilinear filtering, which looks very blurry.
To reproduce: boot a Linux or Windows entry from RefindPlus AF with a default config and watch the exit logo. Compare with AE.
• 128px, 256px and 512px source images all display at 512px
• disable_exitlogo_scale makes no difference (commented or uncommented)
• Changing big_icon_size only affects the main interface. The exit logo stays at 512px
• No config changes between AE and AF
Likely cause: the ScaleLogo table in StartEFIImage() (Main/launch_efi.c, exit logo block) was rewritten in AF. Old: >= 256 → 1, >= 128 → 2, >= 64 → 4, else 8. New: < 129 → 4, < 257 → 2, else 1 (plus cases for sizes under 65). For a 128px big icon the multiplier went from ×2 to ×4, and every power-of-two big icon size now maps to 512, so there is no config workaround.
Request: please restore the previous 256px target, or add a config option to set the exit logo size. Avoiding upscaling beyond the image's native size would also help.
Problem Point
While Starting a Loader or Tool
Affected Item(s)
Lin OS Loader, Win OS Loader
Debug Log
No debug log provided. This is a purely visual regression (exit logo size changed from 256px in AE to 512px in AF, with no config changes), not a crash, hang or boot failure, so a log would not contain relevant information. The cause is visible in the ScaleLogo table in Main/launch_efi.c, as described above.
Log Requirement
DEBUG_LOGS_ARE_PROVIDED or omission_clearly_justified
Yes, the target display size was deliberately increased.
Consider increasing the size of your source image.
Will consider improvements for future versions.
Got it, I'll change my source images to 512x512. Would you consider adding a config token to set the exit logo target size? The default could stay at 512.
Not yet looked into what would be best, but having a config token could be an option.
In your case for now, you could add boot_[distro].[xyz] as the larger source image.
I have thought about this further and concluded that while it is admittedly not explicitly spelt out, it is implicit that the boot_XYZ files are the files for the splash functionality and that the os_XYZ files are merely fallbacks when such are not present.
In summary, provide appropriately sized the boot_XYZ files if not satisfied with how a fallback os_XYZ file is rendered.
As noted though, this was not explicitly made clear and that would be rectified presently.
Activity
dakanji commentedon Oct 19, 2026
Yes, the target display size was deliberately increased.
Consider increasing the size of your source image.
Will consider improvements for future versions.
Roopdragon commentedon Oct 19, 2026
Got it, I'll change my source images to 512x512. Would you consider adding a config token to set the exit logo target size? The default could stay at 512.
dakanji commentedon Oct 19, 2026
Not yet looked into what would be best, but having a config token could be an option.
In your case for now, you could add
boot_[distro].[xyz]as the larger source image.dakanji commentedon Oct 19, 2026
Hello,
I have thought about this further and concluded that while it is admittedly not explicitly spelt out, it is implicit that the
boot_XYZfiles are the files for the splash functionality and that theos_XYZfiles are merely fallbacks when such are not present.In summary, provide appropriately sized the
boot_XYZfiles if not satisfied with how a fallbackos_XYZfile is rendered.As noted though, this was not explicitly made clear and that would be rectified presently.
Thanks for bringing the matter up.
refindplusrepo commentedon Oct 31, 2026
This thread is being locked.
Please use the Discussions Feature for follow-on discussion or raise a new issue if appropriate.