Actually my images under the "stable" 1.2.4 version of the gimp are already being initially scaled well outside of the 1/16 to 16/1 range, and have been for quite a while now (since at least October if not earlier). Thanks a lot for the great tip regarding the "1" key. I wasn't aware of that. That will certainly be a significant help to me, assuming that my initial scaling proposal will not be accepted. Just goes to show you learn something new every day! Wish I had noticed that one in the docs or someone had told me about it months ago... I do still have one question for you guys who are against my proposal though: Have any of you ever actually used the GIMP with images of the size and aspect ratio that I'm routinely working with??? I'm betting not. Perhaps you might consider putting more weight on someone's opinion who is ACTUALLY using the gimp with these types of images. However, please take that comment with a grain of salt. I'm not all that stuck up on my own opinions, even though I am stubborn as hell :-) But I am just a little frustrated right now, because I've put in a fair amount of time and effort into getting this issue resolved with a fix that will save me some time, and all of the negatives that folks are bringing up seem to be hypothetical, theoretical, and philosophical arguments rather than something that helps me to get real work done! Never the less, as a programmer and application developer myself, and one who can appreciate a certain amount of consistency, elegance, and simplicity in a program, I do understand some of the arugments against my proposed change, even though that's still not the approach that I would choose. Oh well, <sigh>, I guess I will resign myself to losing this one. It's gonna be tough to give up on the modified version of the gimp that I built and have been using for the past week or so, after getting used to my documents automatically being displayed exactly the way that I would like to see them. But like I said before, I can't really afford to get into a mode of maintaining my own customized version of the gimp. So, I guess out the door my nice changes go :-( s/KAM ----- Original Message ----- From: <bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <KevinMyers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:33 AM Subject: [Bug 103547] Changed - Initial Display Scale Too Small for High Aspect Ratio Images > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103547 > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From quinet@xxxxxxxxxx 2003-01-16 06:33 ------- > Wow! Many comments since yesterday... I would just like to point out > that I tend to agree with Sven: I think that some kind of consistency > is important in the user interface, and most users would expect to see > the image scaled to fit the screen (even if it is only 1 pixel wide) > because this gives them a good idea of the aspect ratio and it is also > easy to understand and predict how the GIMP will open an image. > > The problem is the limitation to the 16:1 or 1:16 aspect ratio of the > stable GIMP, which prevents very thin images from being scaled to the > appropriate size for fitting entirely on the screen. > > If we really want to change the stable GIMP in order to fix this bug, > then I would prefer to invest some time in removing the 16:1 and 1:16 > limits than to implement a different algorithm for the initial > scaling factor. Note that even if the image is intially scaled in > such a way that one a 1-pixel line or column is visible, it only takes > one keystroke (pressing the "1" key) to get the 1:1 aspect ratio.
