On Wednesday 21 January 2004 12:27, Simon Budig wrote: > Joao S. O. Bueno (gwidion@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > I've tried Simons Patch, and it seemed very nice for me. > > Of course I am innoi position to word out what should and should > > not be commited, but from a user point of view, it is nice. > > There are two things I'd like to know. > > As you know Gimp avoids opening too big image windows when loading > an image. Right now the size of the image area is restricted to > 0.75 * screen dimensions. This of course is perfectly Ok. > > However, I'd like to know which of the two following behaviours is > preferrable in case of an image being too big for the screen: > > a) open the image as big as possible (zoom-to-fit to a window about > 0.75 * screen dimensions), this roughly is the behavior of > current CVS. > > b) open the image in the next smaller zoom preset (which would > result in image windows smaller than the 0.75 * screen dimensions, > but would have nice ratios) (since CVS does not yet really have any > zoom presets its hard to compare...) Hmm... Actually, 0.75 is sometimes boring, when the whole image would fit in, say, 90% of the screen, and it shows up zoomed out. regarding your specific question, it would not be nice if the GIMP openned an image in a zoom factor that once changed could not get easily reproduced. So the answer is (b).However, if you could make it in a way that if the next bigger zoom ratio (in the 2^(1/2) steps you use) would be no larger than 80% or maybe 85% of the screen it would be the one used. On the other hand, I was not around when the choice for 75% was made, and there may be strong motives for that. > > Also I'd like to know if the zoom steps around 100% are fine > grained enough. Homogenous zooming right now is implemented with a > factor of 2^(1/2) (from 100% to 200% in two steps), but 2^(1/3), > 2^(1/4) would work as well (three, resp. four steps from 100% to > 200%) and give finer grained steps. Yes, it seens just ok. I would not like to have to hit '+' four times to get a image twice as large. Now let's see what others have to say. > > Opinions? > > Thanks, > Simon Regards, JS -><-