Simon Budig writes:
> This has the advantage that the behaviour is exactly predictable in
> every zoom level, since always exactly the same rectangle of the
> viewable area gets magnified.
Hear, hear! This seems like a big win to me. I'm all for this.
> It seems that some people are scared aw
Simon Budig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> With this approach it is trivial to implement different approaches
> for the zooming strategy: "homogenous zooming" would multiply/divide
> by sqrt(2), "preset zooming" would have a lookup table with percentages
> for the different zoom steps and move back/f
GSR / FR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I saw that zoom has been changed following bug 124073. After trying
> it, I did not liked it. Personally I think it gives too much
> importance to extreme zooms, forgeting most people work around
> 100%. 4000 to 20 pix images in a reasonable size monitor is wha
Hi,
I don't think it makes sense to discuss patches here. We should
concentrate on the behaviour we'd like to see and do the
implementation later.
In my opinion it is important that the series of zoom ratios is
linear. The current implementation fulfills this requirement, it
favors zoom ratios s
Hi,
GSR / FR wrote:
> I saw that zoom has been changed following bug 124073. After trying
> it, I did not liked it. Personally I think it gives too much
> importance to extreme zooms, forgeting most people work around
> 100%. 4000 to 20 pix images in a reasonable size monitor is what I
> normally
Hi:
I saw that zoom has been changed following bug 124073. After trying
it, I did not liked it. Personally I think it gives too much
importance to extreme zooms, forgeting most people work around
100%. 4000 to 20 pix images in a reasonable size monitor is what I
normally see, not 4 pix or peop
