Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:36:11 + (GMT)
From: Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday, 19 Feb 2000, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> Pending a general way to scale images separately on X and Y axes, what
> would be your (collective) suggestions about
On Saturday, 19 Feb 2000, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> Pending a general way to scale images separately on X and Y axes, what
> would be your (collective) suggestions about how to handle an image
> with different X and Y resolutions?
This happens so rarely that I would (for the moment) ignore it.
From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 03:18:53 +0100
Don't underestimate the importance of the resolution info for the print
plugin. The following task may not be very professional, but it is
certainly something the average gimp user does frequently:
Sc
From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 03:18:53 +0100
Don't underestimate the importance of the resolution info for the print
plugin. The following task may not be very professional, but it is
certainly something the average gimp user does frequently:
Sc
Hi,
> Mind, based on my own DTP experience, I'm not entirely convinced that
> this is all that useful, anyway. When I did newsletters, I had to fit
> photos and other graphics to the page; nominal image size meant very
> little beyond being careful not to enlarge things too much. The 3.1
> plug
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:35:17 +0100
> Well, thus far we've had very little trouble supporting 1.0. Even the
> configure script works properly. 1.0 is still the stable release of
> the Gimp.
I really don't under
From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:50:05 +0100
> Doing it correctly won't be entirely trivial, since the print plugin
> currently assumes xres == yres, but I want to start investigating it.
> Whatever happens, it won't get back ported to 3.0.
I don
Hi,
>
> Well, thus far we've had very little trouble supporting 1.0. Even the
> configure script works properly. 1.0 is still the stable release of
> the Gimp.
>
I really don't understand your development cycle. We are approaching the
1.2 release but you insist on keeping the code that is g
Hi,
> I'm experimenting with gimp_image_get_resolution(). It appears (in
> 1.1.17, at any rate) that whatever I set the units to I always get a
> resolution back that's expressed in dots per inch. Is this behavior
> correct? If so, did it work this way in 1.0 also? This is so I can
> investig
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:43:41 +0100
From: Michael Natterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert L Krawitz wrote:
>
> I'm experimenting with gimp_image_get_resolution(). It appears (in
> 1.1.17, at any rate) that whatever I set the units to I always get a
>
Robert L Krawitz wrote:
>
> I'm experimenting with gimp_image_get_resolution(). It appears (in
> 1.1.17, at any rate) that whatever I set the units to I always get a
> resolution back that's expressed in dots per inch. Is this behavior
> correct?
Absolutely correct.
> If so, did it work this
I'm experimenting with gimp_image_get_resolution(). It appears (in
1.1.17, at any rate) that whatever I set the units to I always get a
resolution back that's expressed in dots per inch. Is this behavior
correct? If so, did it work this way in 1.0 also? This is so I can
investigate its use wit
12 matches
Mail list logo
