https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64876
Andreas Beeker <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Andreas Beeker <[email protected]> --- If you use the trunk version, it will recognize the WMF file as EMF. Apart of that, it's one of those images where the inner bounds don't match the outer bounds - therefore you need to use the -emfHeaderBounds (only in the trunk yet) with PPTX2PNG or set graphics.setRenderingHint(Drawable.EMF_FORCE_HEADER_BOUNDS, true). To verify the bounds issue above, you can use PPTX2PNG with -dump <output.json> option. The view bounds are (0,0,1879,357)... >},{ /* setViewportOrgEx - index: 4 */ > "origin": { "x": 0.0, "y": 0.0 } >},{ /* setWindowExtEx - index: 5 */ > "size": { "width": 1879.0, "height": 357.0 } >},{ /* setViewportExtEx - index: 6 */ > "extents": { "width": 1879.0, "height": 357.0 } but later on you see something like this ... which is outside that view: > { "type": "move", "x": 2154.0, "y": 638.0 } Currently I can't distinguish between images which header bounds are just describing the smallest bounds around the graphics and header bounds correctly specifying the placement of the image. Especially with EMFs nested in EMFs the header bounds seem to be ignored. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
