I wonder what would happen if you changed the frame dimensions to 33% more than the highest of the x,y coordinates before rotating the actual image, then setting the frame dimensions to fit after the fact?
Bob On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Richmond wrote: > This one is a real truckload of old "Sh"; > > Imported an image that was 111 * 86 pixels; blew it up to 165 * 126 > (i.e. about 1 and a half times the original size); locked it . . . > > set the angle of img "MG" to 30 > > the image is rotated by 30 degrees, but the 'frame' of 165 * 126 pixels is > not; > the image resizing so that its points fit within the 'frame'. > > set the angle of img "MG" to 0 > > derotated the image and returned it to its original size. > > Perhaps the most telling experiment was when I did this: > > set the angle of img "MG" to 90 > > the whole image, being rotated 90 degrees was distorted to fit within > the 'frame'; the effect being that the pictorial content was both squeezed > and stretched. > > Needless to point out; that with the image at its original size, none of these > probelms arise. > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
