![]() Meaning, that this "area" would be fixed and whatever image you provide will be sized to this area - which the area would also resize in proportion to the current window size. If there was a size mode that could be set to this, then it would automatically handle resize (as a percentage of the window) as well as any potential padding. In television there is the concept of a "bug" - a logo (image) that is displayed (typically) at the bottom right of the display. Regardless, padding should be presented in its own issue. ![]() However, again, image manipulation can closely mimic this as long as it’s acceptable for padding sizes to scale when using stretch modes other than none. The same display functionality cannot be completely mimicked through image manipulation and use of existing settings. I do agree that a padding setting would be beneficial. There are cross platform tools such as FFmpeg and GIMP that support resizing animated gifs, although they may require looking up some examples. This may be more relevant to #1936 where mentions that extensions could add background features that have less demand. Unlike settings such as alignment, which are affected by dynamic window sizes and stretch mode, image size is something that is not affected by any of these in a way that requires the setting in order to obtain something new. Unnecessary: Image resizing can be performed with external tools. ![]() However, would it be confusing for the user when combining these image size settings with stretch mode? This is likely the easiest way to implement the feature as well.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |