You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
With a 200% scaling (e.g. on a 218 ppi 5k monitor), choosing a 100% zoom seems to yield (in fact) a 200% zoom, i.e. “4 monitor pixels per image pixel” instead of “pixel to pixel”.
This↑ approach is usually taken by web browsers when no high-resolution versions of images are available; browsers scale (and therefore blur, to an extent) images to prevent them from looking tiny and odd around (scaled) web page text. However, programs that work with images without adjacent (scaled) text should probably keep the original notion of pixels, regardless font and UI scaling.
An example troublesome use case: I take a screenshot (with UI set to a 200% scaling), open it in the Annotator and choose a 100% zoom. The Annotator shows a blurred 200%-like zoom of the screenshot. Setting 50% seems to be just right for a “1:1 appearance”.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
With a 200% scaling (e.g. on a 218 ppi 5k monitor), choosing a 100% zoom seems to yield (in fact) a 200% zoom, i.e. “4 monitor pixels per image pixel” instead of “pixel to pixel”.
This↑ approach is usually taken by web browsers when no high-resolution versions of images are available; browsers scale (and therefore blur, to an extent) images to prevent them from looking tiny and odd around (scaled) web page text. However, programs that work with images without adjacent (scaled) text should probably keep the original notion of pixels, regardless font and UI scaling.
An example troublesome use case: I take a screenshot (with UI set to a 200% scaling), open it in the Annotator and choose a 100% zoom. The Annotator shows a blurred 200%-like zoom of the screenshot. Setting 50% seems to be just right for a “1:1 appearance”.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: