I have an esthetic problem with the generated documentation by Doxygen 1.8.13.
When I check the option INTERACTIVE_SVG for unknown reasons, 2 graphs with the same number of nodes appears differently see below :
Image with not Pan & Zoom
Image with Pan & Zoom
How we can change the limit size when Doxygen transform the SVG generated into an interactive SVG ?
Thanks
Related
When I converted my video using Azure Media Services to format 9x16 letterboxes appeared in the top and the bottom. I used stretchMode: "AutoFit" so letterbox is actually a normal effect here.
Pad the output (with either letterbox or pillar box) to honor the output resolution, while ensuring that the active video region in the output has the same aspect ratio as the input. For example, if the input is 1920x1080 and the encoding preset asks for 1280x1280, then the output will be at 1280x1280, which contains an inner rectangle of 1280x720 at aspect ratio of 16:9, and pillar box regions 280 pixels wide at the left and right.
However I wonder if this is possible to put an image there instead of having them just black.
My video looks like this:
No, we do not currently support placing background images during a stretch or letterboxing operation. If possible, and you do not have a ton of these videos to process, I recommend running them through a free compositing application like BlackMagic's Davinci Resolve to get the intended effect and then uploading the final output for streaming.
I am currently making a mobile match-3 like game in unity. I have made all the graphics for the gems(the objects with which you make the matches) in Inkscape at 256x256 and exported them(PNG Files) with 90 dpi(also tried with 360 but nothing changed). My problem is that when I run the game in the editor the graphics seem to be "pixelated" and blurry. In my sprite settings I've set Pixels per Unit to 256, checked Generate Mip Maps, I am using Bilinear Filter Mode and the aniso level is 0. I have also set the max size to 256 and compression to high quality(My Main Camera's size is 10 but I tried to change that and nothing changed as far as the quality of the sprites). What can I do to "perfectly" display my sprites? Do I have to export them in some other way from Inkscape or do I have to change some Unity's settings?
Thank you.
NOTE: My sprites are not "pixel art"!
Edit(Added photos of the purple gem as file and how it is shown in editor):
Because scaling
You're display resolution on the images isn't a 256x256 region where those images are displayed, which means that they must be scaled in some manner in order to display in the desired region. Camera rendering is notoriously bad at scaling. As your images aren't Vector (and Unity doesn't support vector graphic formats anyway), scaling will always result in a loss of detail. Detail like hard edges.
Your options are:
smaller images where you have complete control over how the image is scaled down
bilinear filtering (which is fundamentally blurry)
mipmaps (which are automatically scaled down versions of your image in powers of two)
If the later two aren't giving satisfactory results, your only option is the first.
If I set some value for styles.content.imgtext.linkWrap.width or styles.content.imgtext.linkWrap.height small images will be rendered to this value instead in its original size.
How can I achieve, that great images will be decreased to my value but small images won't be enlarged to this value?
You can find the following setting in the TYPO3 Install Tool:
[GFX][processor_allowUpscaling]
Uncheck this checkbox to prevent upscaling of smaller images.
I'm creating a simple program in Racket that imports two bitmaps and exports them in a single image. I'm having an issue with the pixel density on my MacBook because the images are non-retina. For my image processing, I'm using the 2htdp/image library.
Is there a way to set the pixel density of my racket program?
The line that exports the image is:
(save-image final-image "final.png" WIDTH HEIGHT)
I'm trying not to include too much information, but if there's anything I can add (more code, for example) to make my question more clear, please let me know.
P.S: Processing approaches this problem in the following way:
https://processing.org/reference/displayDensity_.html
This is not a complete answer, but perhaps it will help you to get started.
First, you say "the images are non-retina". This might be a misconception.
The word "retina" is used to describe the resolution of the screen, you happen
to be using (roughly the screen is "retina" if the screen pixels are so small your
eye can't see individual dots).
However, my guess is that when you draw the loaded image on screen, it
is shown at half the size, you are expecting?
The reason for that is found in section "1.8 Screen Resolution and Text Scaling"
in the docs for gui has the following to say:
On Mac OS, screen sizes are described to users in terms of drawing
units. A Retina display provides two pixels per drawing unit, while
drawing units are used consistently for window sizes, child window
positions, and canvas drawing. A “point” for font sizing is equivalent
to a drawing unit.
One solution is to scale the loaded image to double the size:
(scale 2 the-loaded-image)
before drawing it.
Finally, how can a program know whether the current display is a retina display?
The function get-display-backing-scale is what you need:
(require racket/gui/base)
(get-display-backing-scale)
It will return 2.0 if the screen is retina, otherwise 1.0.
If you have more than one monitor, lookup the function
in the docs to see details on handling that.
I am trying to create a background image on a webpage, which is similar to the 404 page used on tumbler...
http://testing404image.tumblr.com/
Here we can see a PNG which is 1623*1064 pixels, yet appears reasonably smooth gradient wise.
The direct link for the image is
http://testing404image.tumblr.com/images/status_bg.png?2
When I try to create a similar PNG (different colors, but same size) in Photoshop CS4 for Mac, the resulting file ends up at > 400k, whereas tumblers is 90k
Ive tried playing with all Photoshop options, including reducing number of colors to 55, but I cannot get the image below ~240k.
Ive also tried various optimising tools such as ImageOptim (http://imageoptim.com/) but to no avail.
Are there any properties of this PNG which result in a such a low file size?
I tried using JPG, thinking its better suited to gradient images, but even a 100% quality JPG resulted in noticeable aliasing, which an identical content/size PNG didnt have.
Thanks for any advice
Hi there changed the colours with
Image > Adjustments > Hue/Saturation - In Photoshop CS4
and this is the result:
as you can see it's almost the same size (75k).
Try playing around under the
Image > Adjustments
to get the color you are looking for and save as png with NONE for interlace.
Photoshop is not very good with PNG: I simply opened and saved it with the humble xnView (maximum compression), and got 74K. You can also convert it to paletted-image, and do some extra little tuning - PNGoptim gives me a final size of 64.548. I would't expect anything much better than that, the image is just too big.
BTW, be aware that using a gradient that is so big and so smooth that it a digital image (with 8 bits per pixel) cannot represent it without some banding. That image is really oversampled (you could resample it at 25% or less and display it scaled, and the result would be basically the same)
The actual reason is the source image your looking to have a lower gradient quality than the one you are making.
Just uncheck the Dither option (from the top toolbar in Photoshop) when filling the gradient color. the quality and smoothness of the gradient is decreased and therefore you get a very smaller file sized PNG output.