On Wed, 10 May 2023 17:45:17 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <s...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> So, I added this code specifically to have improved rendering for the 25% >> cases, like 125%, 225%, 325% as rendering was a little off for these scale >> values and empirically based on what we saw it looked better with this >> calculation. >> It is also important to note that windows is not consistent in what size it >> provides for a part(button) . For example for 150% it provides part size as >> 20 and we calculate it as 20 in above code. For 175% windows still provides >> 20 again (while we would expect higher value) and we calculate it as 23 and >> it works out good. But as I said earlier for 125% or 225% it works best with >> above code. >> The 20 vs 19 thing that I mentioned above was to just show that clipRound >> doesn't calculate it same was as my code and can have rendering >> repercussions as it is very sensitive to pixel variation , even 1 pixel >> variation causes rendering artifacts. > >>So, I added this code specifically to have improved rendering for the 25% >>cases, like 125%, 225%, 325% as rendering was a little off f > > But why it looks off if the clipRound is used? Does that size scales worse or > does it cut the image at some direction? With clipRound this is what I see with 150% Scaling:  With the current code change this is what I see with 150% Scaling:  I see it scaled down with clipRound. I think this because of the calculation difference I mentioned above, as this is very sensitive and even 1pixel here or there can cause rendering issues. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13701#discussion_r1193198693
