Different minimal scales…

[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

[Clo]

Pierre

Hello !

• Fixed in 1.93ß1, thanks !

KR
Claude
Clo

[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)?

[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

[marsh]

Zero % mystery?

[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