Re: image size limit?

[David Kastrup]

address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> RMS:
>> But I don't think this limit should be absolute.  I think it should be
>> specified as a multiple of the frame height and width, and it should
>> be given as a floating point number. I'd suggest 2.0 as the default
>> for this ratio.
>
> Stefan:
>> All this to say that I think choosing the maximum image size based on
>> display-pixel-width and display-pixel-height would be preferable than using
>> frame size.
>
> If you use image slicing, you can in principle show a small area of a
> much larger image.  
>
> I don't see how that relates to the dimensions of the frame or display.
>
> But it definitely sounds better to scale according to display size
> rather than frame size (but round up to minimum size e.g. 4096x4096).

It sounds to me like the limits should be configurable, with a
somewhat conservative default.  Applications where larger dimensions
might be appropriate (image viewers with provisions for panning, i.e.)
can allow them in their own buffers using buffer-local settings of the
variables limiting the size.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum