Actual Size & Bitmap Image Scaling Problems

[MSotero]

While I noticed the following two circumstances in 8.1 (maybe it existed sooner) they are still present in 9.0.

First:
Once upon a time if I choose "Actual Size" then I could put my scale up to the screen or hold a scaled image next to it and see a correct relationship. But at present, actual size seems to have nothing to do with a properly scaled image. Could it have something to do with the transition from a glass monitor to a LCD? Is there a way to make actual size do what it says, actually be actual size? I might add here that this incorrect scale of the monitor display is for everything - vector or otherwise.

Second:
It is not uncommon for me to do loose hand sketches over archicad generated base drawings for presentations, scan them, and then plot them from on a normal title sheet (at times mixed with vector drawings).

However, if I merge scans into archicad (and yes I make sure the screen window view is 100% - not even sure if that matters anymore) or import them into plotmaker the image may or may not be scaled properly depending on what I did in Photoshop.

What I've noticed is that the scale is NOT correct if I had changed the Canvas size in Photoshop. I regularly do this because my scanner bed is only so big and I need to piece together multiple scans to complete some images. At present, I'm forced to place the image in either program and resize it. So far I've found the fastest way is to look at the image size (inches measurement) in Photoshop and then make the placed images match that in AC or PM which of course then changes the resolution of the placed image.

Is there reason for what is happening? A work around? Is this a bug?

Just yesterday, in a rush to a meeting I realized during the presentation that I forgot to resize a couple images and had to explain to the client that some images were not to scale. Not a confidence builder.

[Dwight]

Placing a figure using the figure tool is simply more accurate.

Perhaps for the tolerances you need in your work, stretching to the nearest pixel is good enough, but in my experience, once a stretch to line is completed, zooming-in on that same line reveals deviation.

[Steve Jepson]

Dwight wrote:
Placing a figure using the figure tool is simply more accurate.

Perhaps for the tolerances you need in your work, stretching to the nearest pixel is good enough, but in my experience, once a stretch to line is completed, zooming-in on that same line reveals deviation.

"...simply more accurate."? More accurate than what? Of course it reveals deviation, its an image file!
What are the "Far better" methods you are using that require "Fewer steps" and give you a more accurately scaled image than stretching the image to the nearest pixel? I think I am missing something here.

[Dwight]

When you stretch a bitmap to an ArchiCAD line visually, you can only get to the closet pixel. This will vary depending on the zoom amount, introducing a considerable deviation in the relationship between the pixels and the line. So you never know exactly what you are stretching to and this is where the inaccuracy occurs. When I did this procedure, and zoomed in or out, the representation of the graphic varied in relation to the line and that is why I don't rely on it.

It seems to me that since the figure tool was introduced, you open the pasted-in figure and set its absolute size as you want it to be - assuming you've made a precise cut from the originating file.

I say that this is fewer steps because it achieves accuracy immediately and in my experience, the stretch method requires at least two tries.

Enough, already.

[Anonymous]

What I would like to know is what that guy is doing with the light house?

[Dwight]

Just things I do on my summmer vacation.

See Super Stunts 5 at

http://www.worth1000.com/

for anyone interested in Photoreconstruction.

[Djordje]

Mike wrote:
What I would like to know is what that guy is doing with the light house?

Bungee?