> To be clear on this rotation has no effect on the images size. > So this statement on the face of it doesn't make sense to me. I suspect > what is happening is that you are setting the image width and height to > that of the destination rectangle, since the image element by default > will shrink the image to fit the width and height given your image > size changes, but what you should really do if you need to rotate the > image is swap the width and height of the image element in anticipation > of the rotation to come.
Thank you very much for this remark. With switching the width and height I didn't need the scaling anymore, and all there was left was a correction on the position of the image for the rotation. With this I was able to solve my problem. I tried switching width and height before, but probably switched it in too many places at the same time. Thanks, Chantal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
