[ubuntu-art] Re: ubuntu-art Digest, Vol 11, Issue 46

Michiel Sikma omega at avalanchestudios.net
Wed May 17 16:01:46 BST 2006


Op 17-mei-2006, om 16:53 heeft Mark Shuttleworth het volgende  
geschreven:

> Michiel Sikma wrote:
>> I don't get why you would want that. All that happens with the  
>> scaling is the image being squished and then later stretched back  
>> to normal. The only effect would be a loss in quality; not a loss  
>> in proportions or composition. I don't see why you would want to  
>> maintain two versions.
> There is only one version which counts, which is the 600x400 (or  
> whatever) FINAL IMAGE that gets baked into the .so file. The value  
> of having a (for example) 1024x768 version is to see what it will  
> ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE when the framebuffer expands it to fill the  
> screen. That expansion is "dumb" (there's no smoothing going on) so  
> the example large-format version should be scaled up with a "dumb"  
> scaling algorithm so it gives a realistic view.
>
> Mark

Actually, when making a picture that shows how it would look, it's  
not very realistic to upscale an image from 640x400 to 640x480 (or  
1024x768). That would cause some pixels to be doubled, which would  
make it look really weird.

The upscaling that's caused after there's an actual .so file in place  
is, like you say, without smoothing. But, it's also important to note  
that it's done without altering the pixels. It's only the pixels that  
are made to look larger, not the image that's given double pixels.

The most accurate way to emulate how a 640x400 squished image would  
look in real usage would be to upscale it to a multiple of 640x480;  
1280x960, for example, so there's more room for accurate emulation of  
the screen stretching.

Of course, the best way to check would be to somehow get the image to  
be displayed in full-screen at 640x400...

Michiel



More information about the ubuntu-art mailing list