View Single Post
Old 07-25-2017, 01:19 PM   #5
KevinH
Sigil Developer
KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 8,842
Karma: 6120478
Join Date: Nov 2009
Device: many
I do not understand the calculation yet. Is your original image 626 pixels wide and and 942 pixels tall or visa-versa?

If 626 wide and 942 tall and your screen has a 4/3 aspect ratio (say 800 pixels wide by 600 pixels tall) then allowing your image width to be 88.6% of the screen would result in an image width of 708.8 pixels. To keep the same aspect ratio, you would have to scale your image height to 1066 pixels which would go over one screen in height.

If instead your image is 942 pixels wide and 626 pixels tall and your screen has a 4/3 aspect ratio (again use a width of 800 and height of 600 for the screen), then setting the width to use to be 88.6% of the screen would result in an image width of 708.8 pixels which then would result in an image height of 471 pixels on the screen (to keep the same aspect ratio) which would fit nicely into a single screen.

That is why I asked if you were using image width over image height or visa-versa?

Which is it?
KevinH is offline   Reply With Quote