On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Tom Rathborne wrote:

> Expanding the image to 1400x1400 first would fix that.  However, I can
> imagine that you might want to wrap an 8000x100 image into a 1000x1000
> circle, but expanding the image to 8000x8000 might be beyond your
> machine's resources.

Yes, and the input image would also not be trivial to build: I'd have to
modify the aspect ratio of my text so that it gets output with the correct
aspect ratio after the polar transform...

And, yes, while it might be made to work this way:
* It needs HUGE intermediate images, as you pointed out, and these will
  kill commonly-sized machines.
* It is definitely anti-intuitive, cumbersome, error-prone and
  frustrating. Exactly the kind of example that proprietary software
  advocates like: "Sure, it's nice and all, many reasonable things can't
  be done, or you need to be Albert Einstein to know how you are supposed
  to do them. Those programmers do not care much for the end user."

> I think may plug-ins suffer from this problem, but I doubt that they
> can all be fixed in any reasonable amount of time.

Two input fields: target-width and target-height in each of the
plug-ins where this bug is most annoying?

David Monniaux                    Fax: +33 1 44 32 20 80 
Laboratoire d'informatique de l'École Normale Supérieure,
45 rue d'Ulm - 75230 PARIS cedex 5 - FRANCE

Reply via email to