Perfect thanks so much yet again! John From: Lenard Lindstrom <le...@telus.net> Reply-To: <pygame-users@seul.org> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:26:02 -0600 (MDT) To: <pygame-users@seul.org> Subject: Re: [pygame] Fast method for pixellated animation
Hi, The Pygame scroll.py example program uses the pygame.transform.scale function to zoom in on an image. https://bitbucket.org/pygame/pygame/src/dd6752f761be/examples/scroll.py It is packaged with Pygame and can be run with the following command line: python -m pygame.examples.scroll Lenard Lindstrom On Oct 24, 2011, John Jameson <jwin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks I tried this but I'm just learning pygame and just need to get a > little higher on the curve I guess. > I'll get it though. Thanks so much again. > john > > > From: Christopher Night <cosmologi...@gmail.com> > Reply-To: <pygame-users@seul.org> > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:22:00 -0400 > To: <pygame-users@seul.org> > Subject: Re: [pygame] Fast method for pixellated animation > > The obvious solution is pygame.transform.scale. Whether this is the most > efficient method or not depends on how you're generating the image in the > first place. But if you've already got a 100x100 image as a pygame.Surface > object, and you want to create a 400x400 image out of it, it's clearly the way > to go. > > -Christopher > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:59 PM, John Jameson <jwin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I would like an efficient way to generate an animated grey-scale >> "pixellated" image. For example, to be able to generate an image say of >> 100 X 100 pixels, where I can specify the size of the image on the screen >> (which thus determines the size of the pixels). One way would be to treat >> each pixel as a filled rectangle and draw them accordingly, but this could >> be quite slow since it has to do this 10,000 times for each image. Another >> way might be to just generate the image as a 100X100 image but "magnified" >> and thus automatically obtaining the same result. Is this possible? If >> not, is there yet another way to do this that might be more efficient? >> thanks, >> john >
