On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:53:03 -0400 Christopher Night <cosmologi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Either way, that's fine, and not very suprising. That's exactly what > I had in mind. So I really don't see why you weren't able to answer > my original question. Let me try asking it one more time. Sorry. The good news is: this time I understood what you mean. (I think!) :) > You say that a 100x200 rect would be scaled to 10x20 pixels. Yes, > obviously, this makes sense. What would a 104x200 rect be scaled to? > 10x20 pixels? Or 11x20 pixels? Or would it depend on the position of > the rect? (Remember that in addition to height and width, rectangles > also have positions, ie left and top. You can't just say "draw a > 10x20 rectangle", you also have to say where to draw it. This is > relevant to the question, so try to keep it in mind.) Since we are working in raster rather than in vectorial, I would first convert the rectangle in coordinates, and then scale, possibly rounding to the nearest integer. The idea is that position (x=4) + (width=14) = right(18) -- > scaled: 2 and not x=4 --> scaled: 0 + width=14 --> scaled 1 --> scaled_sum: 1. Which I suppose was the point you were trying to make in the first post of yours (maybe part of the reason why I did not get it is that I never used this before: I only needed to blit sprites on images in my code). Does this answer your question? Usual disclaimer: I did not think this deeply, I'm very open to alternative ways of implementing it. :) /mac
