Scalable preview window?

Jessariah67 wrote on 8/31/2004, 7:17 AM
Is there any reason why the preview window can't be scalable. There's a whole lof of room between 360x240 and 720x480 -- it would be nice to be able to resize to a comfortable resolution -- at the very least, have a few more settings in between the two. Is that a tough one for the programmers? Is there a reason why it isn't there already?

Comments

johnmeyer wrote on 8/31/2004, 10:25 AM
This would be nice. However, for me it would be even nicer to be able to zoom (which is in the same neck of the woods, as far as the coding is concerned). The reason for zoom is to be able to make more exact adjustments when doing masks, color corrections (for eyedropper samples), etc.
stormstereo wrote on 8/31/2004, 12:30 PM
I love both of your ideas!
Best/Tommy
John_Cline wrote on 8/31/2004, 12:33 PM
I suspect that the reason for 720x480 and 360x240 is that it is quicker to divide the image by integer values.

John
JasonMurray wrote on 8/31/2004, 8:22 PM
I'm inclined to agree - it would take more processing power to scale to an "odd" resolution.
farss wrote on 8/31/2004, 8:43 PM
I'd agree on the issue of the amount of horsepower needed for varibale scaling however short of buting a VERY expensvie studio monitor as others have said there's no other way to see wht you're doing to pixel accuracy.
This certainly isn't needed for realtime preview though so it shouldn't be that hard to make happen.

Although I wonder if there's some 3rd party way to zoom anything that's on a PC monitor, Macs sure have it. Oh my god, I said something nice about a Mac!

Bob.
Jessariah67 wrote on 8/31/2004, 10:24 PM
Okay...how about a 540x360 AND a 1440x960 option? We get a "half-way" for the preview and a "twice as" for masking. Is that impossible for the programmers? (who, as we speak, are working feverishly to give us back our Track Motion presets...)
Chienworks wrote on 9/1/2004, 5:11 AM
John, my first thought on this topic was the integer value thing too, but then i discarded that line of thought. When you "simulate device aspect" the display is scaled horizontally by 0.90909 for NTSC or 1.0926 for PAL, or other even weirder values for widescreen, etc. These are most definately not integer factors, yet they have absolutely no effect on playback frame rate. I suspect that scaling both dimensions by an arbitrary real value would have minimal impact too.
bStro wrote on 9/1/2004, 8:03 AM
Although I wonder if there's some 3rd party way to zoom anything that's on a PC monitor, Macs sure have it.

Search Windows Help for "magnifier". I don't use it much, so I don't know how cutomizeable it is or if it will serve your purpose. But it's there. :)

Rob
NickHope wrote on 9/2/2004, 4:28 AM
I'd love to be able to preview to full screen for my customers on a boat with no TV without having to preview in Window Media Player.