Rulers in Pixel format - no fractions, please

[abacus971]

I am using GC 8.0, and frequently need to display rulers in pixel format, at very high zoom ratios to see individual pixels and their x,y position values clearly. When I do this, I get a ruler which displays not only whole pixels, but fractional divisions of pixels as well. This clutters the display, and makes it very hard to count pixels. These fractional pixel rulers seem to serve no purpose, as I presume pixels are the smallest divisible unit in the image anyway. So, I wonder if I can simply display only INTEGER values of pixels, on the pixel boundaries? Photoshop behaves in the manner that I am speaking about, and it is much more readable when trying to do examine individual pixels and get their x,y value. Can displaying only INTEGER pixel rulers at least be an option in a future revision of Graphics Converter? Thanks, Larry

[thorstenlemke]

Hello Larry,I add that to the todo list.Thorsten On 31.05.2012, at 18:20, abacus971 wrote:   I am using GC 8.0, and frequently need to display rulers in pixel format, at very high zoom ratios to see individual pixels and their x,y position values clearly. When I do this, I get a ruler which displays not only whole pixels, but fractional divisions of pixels as well. This clutters the display, and makes it very hard to count pixels. These fractional pixel rulers seem to serve no purpose, as I presume pixels are the smallest divisible unit in the image anyway. So, I wonder if I can simply display only INTEGER values of pixels, on the pixel boundaries? Photoshop behaves in the manner that I am speaking about, and it is much more readable when trying to do examine individual pixels and get their x,y value. Can displaying only INTEGER pixel rulers at least be an option in a future revision of Graphics Converter? Thanks, Larry

[abacus971]

EXCELLENT, Thorsten! Your incredibly fast response is one reason we all love this product. Thank you, Larry --- In gcmac@yahoogroups.com, Thorsten Lemke <lemke@...> wrote: > > Hello Larry, > > I add that to the todo list. > > Thorsten > > > On 31.05.2012, at 18:20, abacus971 wrote: > > > I am using GC 8.0, and frequently need to display rulers in pixel format, at very high zoom ratios to see individual pixels and their x,y position values clearly. > > > > When I do this, I get a ruler which displays not only whole pixels, but fractional divisions of pixels as well. This clutters the display, and makes it very hard to count pixels. These fractional pixel rulers seem to serve no purpose, as I presume pixels are the smallest divisible unit in the image anyway. > > > > So, I wonder if I can simply display only INTEGER values of pixels, on the pixel boundaries? > > > > Photoshop behaves in the manner that I am speaking about, and it is much more readable when trying to do examine individual pixels and get their x,y value. > > > > Can displaying only INTEGER pixel rulers at least be an option in a future revision of Graphics Converter? > > > > Thanks, > > Larry > > > > >

[thorstenlemke]

Hello,I released a new beta.Please check:http://www.lemkesoft.org/beta.htmlThorsten On 31.05.2012, at 18:20, abacus971 wrote:   I am using GC 8.0, and frequently need to display rulers in pixel format, at very high zoom ratios to see individual pixels and their x,y position values clearly. When I do this, I get a ruler which displays not only whole pixels, but fractional divisions of pixels as well. This clutters the display, and makes it very hard to count pixels. These fractional pixel rulers seem to serve no purpose, as I presume pixels are the smallest divisible unit in the image anyway. So, I wonder if I can simply display only INTEGER values of pixels, on the pixel boundaries? Photoshop behaves in the manner that I am speaking about, and it is much more readable when trying to do examine individual pixels and get their x,y value. Can displaying only INTEGER pixel rulers at least be an option in a future revision of Graphics Converter? Thanks, Larry

[Larry Knight]

Thorsten;I just tried the new beta, and the new pixel rulers are EXCELLENT!I especially appreciate the highest zoom level, which makes the individual pixel (x,y) values very easy to read.  Actually, Graphic Converter displays the (x,y) values much BETTER than Photoshop now, especially when the pixel values are four digits or more.  This is exactly what I needed to do my map calibration work, and I really appreciate you implementing my suggestion.Larry On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Thorsten Lemke wrote:   Hello,I released a new beta.Please check:http://www.lemkesoft.org/beta.htmlThorstenOn 31.05.2012, at 18:20, abacus971 wrote:   I am using GC 8.0, and frequently need to display rulers in pixel format, at very high zoom ratios to see individual pixels and their x,y position values clearly. When I do this, I get a ruler which displays not only whole pixels, but fractional divisions of pixels as well. This clutters the display, and makes it very hard to count pixels. These fractional pixel rulers seem to serve no purpose, as I presume pixels are the smallest divisible unit in the image anyway. So, I wonder if I can simply display only INTEGER values of pixels, on the pixel boundaries? Photoshop behaves in the manner that I am speaking about, and it is much more readable when trying to do examine individual pixels and get their x,y value. Can displaying only INTEGER pixel rulers at least be an option in a future revision of Graphics Converter? Thanks, Larry =

[thorstenlemke]

Dear Larry,many thanks for your feedback.Thorsten On 27.06.2012, at 19:34, Larry Knight wrote:   Thorsten;I just tried the new beta, and the new pixel rulers are EXCELLENT!I especially appreciate the highest zoom level, which makes the individual pixel (x,y) values very easy to read.  Actually, Graphic Converter displays the (x,y) values much BETTER than Photoshop now, especially when the pixel values are four digits or more.  This is exactly what I needed to do my map calibration work, and I really appreciate you implementing my suggestion.LarryOn Jun 26, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Thorsten Lemke wrote:   He