Page 1 of 1
Different minimal scales…
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:08 am
by Clo
Pierre

Hello !
• When reducing a view via the
NUM– key, the minimal scale I can get is
10 %. I use an 1% step.
- From the menus, it's
7%, that's incoherent.
- Please, could you optimize that ?
- When blowing up an image, there is no difference about the maximal scale, it's same as 1,600%.
• Well, that's not a big deal at first glance, but the difference of size is not negligible
i.e. when I need to capture the reduced pic to make a thumb nail as a link to the 1:1 scale image in another HTML page…
• TIA to consider that (minor) issue !

KR
Claude
Clo
Fixed
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:28 pm
by Clo
Pierre

Hello !
• Fixed in 1.93ß1, thanks !

KR
Claude
Clo
Not yet. 7% new minimum.
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:35 pm
by marsh
In beta1 viewer, 7% (using 1% steps) is minimum. Would it be possible to go to 1% in viewer (this is already present in browser's preview)?
Two percent
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:29 pm
by Clo
marsh

Hello B. !
…Would it be possible to go to 1% in viewer (this is already present in browser's preview)?
• Here I can't get less than
2% for the Preview, using layout #4.
- Maybe it depends on the monitor type¦size ? I've a 17" CRT classic 3 / 4, 1024×768…
-
Paul has
6% minimum (same layout) with LCD 1200×1600 “Portrait” 21"…
EDIT :
• Testing further, I discovered the reason, no more mystery :
• Actually, the shown percentage represents always the minimal fixed space above the status-bar
(shown with the yellow arrow), here 17 pixels, hence it corresponds to a variable percentage of each image…

KR
Claude
Clo
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:13 pm
by marsh
Zero % mystery?

Miss a decimal part
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:37 pm
by Clo

Hi B. !
• No mystery : Larger the image at height, smaller the percent of the 17-pixel height strip is, and
vice versa.
- But since there is no decimal fraction, whether <1 XnView rounds to lower, hence displays “0”…

KR
Claude
Clo