Changing size

[Armin]

I don't know if other people do it as often as me but often I reduce the width or the height of a picture to e.g. 1 and because it's standart that the width&height are connected to each other the result of the other number is 0. Also, I want this to happen because mostly I want that they are connected but yes, shouln't it be impossible that there is an annoying null sometimes? Null is no option, so you have to tick of the connection option and write "1". 1 should be the absolute minimum of height&width, no matter what happens to width&height.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Armin

[nitenurse79]

Hi Armin. Welcome to the forum,

If this is what you mean, see the screenshot below

[BoltBait]

I think his main point is that Paint.NET should never suggest that the width or height be changed to less than 1.

[Red ochre]

Thin pixels?

[Ego Eram Reputo]

^

I think Armin has raised an interesting point.

Entering a very small number with the aspect ratio fixed is going to produce some odd results. 4:3 ratio with a height of one pixel cannot produce a width of 3/4 of a pixel. I think the correct width here is zero - indicating that the width cannot be set via the ratio. If the width were to be set at a minimum of 1 this would not comply with the 4:3 ratio.

I just tried it. If an invalid height or width is entered (manually or by rounding), the OK button is disabled.

[jim100361]

An interesting observation, but I'm curious why someone would reduce a picture down that small in the first place. Of what use would it be? Unless of course you're trying to post a one pixel nudie, huh?

[nitenurse79]

Victoria Beckham ?

[Ego Eram Reputo]

Website backgrounds are often 1px wide and tiled to repeat across the page width. Thus a beckham-slim image can be used to save a lot of bandwidth! This technique is particularly good with vertical gradients.