hi,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:49:31PM +0100, GSR / FR wrote:
> 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
GSR - FR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-17 at 0309.30 +0100):
> > Ideas? Suggestions? (But please do not complain about the lack of your
> > favourite zoom level, trying to insert specific "missing" zoom levels in
> > the table above would completely break the advantages of
Hi,
GSR - FR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I only have a question: why is homougenous zooming the holy grail
> that makes the rest of issues discardable? Something other than the
> words smooth or continous, which only make me think about animation
> and not about painting.
Homogenous scaling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-17 at 0309.30 +0100):
> Ideas? Suggestions? (But please do not complain about the lack of your
> favourite zoom level, trying to insert specific "missing" zoom levels in
> the table above would completely break the advantages of nearly
> homogenous zooming...)
After bein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-16 at 2215.53 +0100):
> There are some issues with the patch, though. I don't really get
> what's happenning in the if (src == 1 && dest == 1) clause, and
> I'm not sure completely reverting the old change is the way to
> go.
It is the flip point, and I found the sequenc
