Set Angle Bug?

[Bob Sneidar]

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 at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode