Created attachment 141487 [details] test file for showing zoom problem When zooming an embedded picture the problem sometimes is that for example with 53% the picture is a too small and with 55% too big. Also 54% may not fit. Therefore it would be good if giving a value between 55 and 54 could be choosen. Unfortunately this is not possible. Why not? Could this be improved?
the test file shows that 53% zoom is too small, 55% is too big. Also 54% does not fit exactly. The problem of the size change in full percent can be seen. It would really help me with my pictures in my books if I could change size in fractions of 1%. I hope this can be made possible.
I think it depends on the monitor, if a zoom factor is too small or to big. So perhaps it is possible to add a screenshot of zoom factor 54% and 55%, so the problem is more clear.
Created attachment 141494 [details] also shows zoom scaling problem same problem with same picture but different page layout. Here to see with 41% scaling too small, with 42% too big.
(In reply to Dieter Praas from comment #2) > I think it depends on the monitor, if a zoom factor is too small or to big. I may have misused the word zoom. What I meant is "Skalierung" in "Zuschneiden" menue. > So perhaps it is possible to add a screenshot of zoom factor 54% and 55%, so > the problem is more clear. I added another test file where the same problem can be seen when switching from "Skalierung" 41% for "Breite" and "Höhe" to 42%. The first one is not going to the bottom of the page and the second is going beyond the page end. So this "Skalierung" factor has to get a value in between which unfortunately is not possible to set. I hope its clearer now.
O. K., now it is clear to me. When I open you attachment 141494 [details] the scale factor is 62% (Width) and 61% (Heigth). I think the scale factor is only important, if you crop a picture. You rezise the picture in the tab "type". So I'm still not sure, waht your problem is. I can't see it and so I can't reproduce it. Perhaps somebody else can help. Sorry.
Created attachment 141501 [details] file to show problem with picture of scale factor included with this file there can be seen the "Skalierung" value 41% on the first page and 42% on the second page. Should I also add pictures of the whole page for more clarity? I think it should be clearly seen now.
what is the sense of the field "Skalierung" when not being used to scale the size of the picture? I wrote 13 books in the last 15 years and thousands of times used this field "Skalierung" for making pictures smaller or bigger without changing the picture file itself which I want to stay unchanged.
Created attachment 141503 [details] Screenshot that shows scaling factor I still have Scaling of 62% and 61%, and I don't know why. I changed the size of the image as you can see in the following attachments. Is this the result you like to have?
Created attachment 141504 [details] document with image that is in align with page borders
Hello Dieter, you write: "I still have Scaling of 62% and 61%, and I don't know why." I also do not why this is so with your system. I am using Win7 64bit, LO5.3.7.2 and my system does show now "Sklarierung" 42% with your test3.odt. I see you changed the height in the field "Bildgröße" which is below "Skalierung". This works. If I put 19cm in "Höhe" at ""Bildgröße", so this will change "Höhe" in "Skalierung" to 40%. Putting to 42% results in 19,96 cm which is too big. You set the value to 19,74cm which fits better. So its not directly possible using "Skalierung" in fine enough steps. To do fine enough its necessary using "Höhe" at ""Bildgröße". Why is is not possible changing the percent value in finer steps? You see that this seems to be necessary here. Best, Matthias
O.K., I can confirm, that it i not possible to set a scaling between 61% and 62%, but I don't want to decide, if this should be treated as an enhancement or not. Let's ask design-team.
You can adjust the actual size very precisely and go with 25.7cm (page a4 -2x 2cm spacing). That works for me perfectly.
I am sorry Heiko, but I do not agree. Reason: its not possible using the percent values as has been shown clearly. its possible using the cm values. So I still feel why should it not be possible using percent values with a comma. I do not feel happy with this. Its also not possible doing very precise sizing sometimes using the mouse. Sometimes I am not far enough and sometimes too far. Therefore I need the menue.
I would say that yes - images scale factor shouldn't be rounded to the percent but offer sub percent precision (2 decimal points).
I agree to Tomaz ! May be at least one decimal to have would be fine. Technically this should be no problem. Other fields also have decimal values.
(In reply to Dr. Matthias Weisser from comment #13) > its not possible using the percent values as has been shown clearly. > its possible using the cm values. I don't see a reason to enter a _precise_ value in percent. You can do that with the exact units and have the same value as for the page size. But what reason do anyone have to think about 52.31 percent? (In reply to Tomaz Vajngerl from comment #14) > I would say that yes - images scale factor shouldn't be rounded to the > percent but offer sub percent precision (2 decimal points). That's bug 44267, isn't it? Anyway, I will not close again as WFM but still think it would be the right decision.
(In reply to Dr. Matthias Weisser from comment #13) > its not possible using the percent values as has been shown clearly. > its possible using the cm values. "I don't see a reason to enter a _precise_ value in percent." whats the reason for giving this field then? clearly one can change size using this percent field. using your logic here this field would have not be changeable. but it is. So why then not enable users to change it to a really useful value? "You can do that with the exact units." thats true. But normally I do not like using those value. The percent value I like much more. "But what reason do anyone have to think about 52.31 percent?" I still think that 52.3% could be good enough. "That's bug 44267, isn't it?" Bug 44267 means: "Two decimal digits are insufficient for specifying object position and size" this is not what I think is so useful instead of percentage. It seems to be a personal preference.
(In reply to Dr. Matthias Weisser from comment #17) > whats the reason for giving this field then? It's an "arbitrary" value between 0 and 100. Actually this type of value is called interval scale (vs. ratio) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement > thats true. But normally I do not like using those value. The percent value > I like much more. So you are an alien :-)
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #18) > It's an "arbitrary" value between 0 and 100. Actually this type of value is > called interval scale (vs. ratio) thank you Heiko ! > So you are an alien :-) sometimes its nice being so :-)
Setting to NEW after pinging Tomaž on IRC.