String fullTitle = 'Photoshop';
int postNumber = 453751;
String image = '1711431893358031.png';
String date = '03/26/24(Tue)01:44:53';
String comment = 'Why is this program so fucking... I don't know, "retarded by default"? I made a 30kx30k transparent canvas. I have a bunch of 1920x1080 screenshots I want to stitch together. Does 10% zoom and that size look like it dropped a 1920x1080 image into a 30kx30k grid? No, it doesn't. The fucking thing apparently thinks in terms of pixels per inch or something, perhaps because it tuned towards printing viewed at a certain distance (?), not raw pixels. So when I place a 1080p screenshot, into a grid of a certain and explicitly specified dimension in the unit of PIXELS not INCHESxPPI, it fucks it all up. Rescales text, all manner.
Seriously, what is this bullshit. I recall searching for how to make this work as expected some time ago, and don't recall getting anywhere. Go to do something real quick a moment ago, realize again. If I have a 1000x1000 canvas then I should be able to line up 10 100x100 image chunks and have them render exactly as they were screenshotted. No pixels per inch, no pixel aspect ratio, no viewing distance, no bullshit.
This has to be simple to fix and I'm just retarded or something. GIMP etc behaves as expected, but I'm not fond of it overall.';
'>>453751
go do some basic research cuz you all arrogant and you dont know shit.
you cant even express your problem clearly - so you a fuck.';
'>>453753
I've stated my problem pretty clearly imo. Pic related is wrong. I put a 1920x1080 image into a canvas, and this is what it gave me. That's not 1920x1080.';
'>>453755';
'You are indeed retarded, but no worries.
Create 10 000 px x 10 000 px new canvas with 72 DPI (no more is needed).
Open your screenshot in a new window and check its dimensions and DPI. If its 1920x1080 and 72 DPI as screenshot should, you can ctrl + a ctrl + c and ctrl + v on your big canvas and IT MUST WORK. If indeed your screens are 1920x1080 and 72 dpi, you can all drag them from folder now and organise it.';
'>>453768
I believe I tested this last time, I will do so again. My intention is basically just something which is lossless, ie bitexact, with respect to the input on a pixel lvel. Not a visual level. If I were to drop the image in then go in and crop it out later it should be exactly 1920 x 1080p. I'll test it again. I'm going to be overlaying a lot of images using the transparency aspect to line them up precisely, and stupid shit like this doesn't help anything. I'm trying to make a case for it in my mind, but cannot do so. Drag and drop an image, it should be precisely the same as the input. No PPI / "dots per inch" (literally WHY) shit about it, I neither know nor give half a fuck, I'm working in PIXELS. Not DOTS or VIEWING DISTANCE. I don't know or give a shit about my or any display's pixel density. I want 1920x1080 in 1920x1080 out, those are PIXELS.
UGH.
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH
WHY ARE THEY ALL LIKE THIS.';
'>>453771
Alright, venting complete. I feel better now.
72 PPI seems to produce the expected result, just by eye. I'd read prior that this was some sort of standard display / "web" resolution, but in my tests with text it still clearly resampled it. Don't know what was going on then, but eh. Thanks for the replies.';
}