>> >>what about changing this to 96x32 so this is at least scalable in size= >=20 >> >>(/2, /4). "95" is so an odd number... >> > >> >Good idea, nobody uses them yet on 0.7 anyway... >>=20 >> Well, i was beginning to use them, but change for a good reason isn't bad= >=20 >> at all. I'd suggest 96*36 though, so you can also do 1/3 > >Well, 96:32 is exactly 3:1, which is nice, and it's very close to the >original, which is also nice... > >We don't have much influence over this; it's down to what the site >authors do.
then what about 108:36 ? it's x and y /2, /3, /4, /6, /9, /12, has a 3:1 ration and is only x+12 and y+1 pixels bigger, which is neglectible _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
