TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
---Alex Dianna <AADiann -at- ACCUSORT -dot- COM> wrote:
>
> Mark Magennis <markmagennis -at- YAHOO -dot- COM mentioned the "stripey scroll
> bar" effect in ScreenCam.
>
> I have seen this in a few static screen captures and was wondering if
> there is any way around it, short of doing a pixel-for-pixel color
> swap. Actually, the ones I've seen have more of a checkerboard
> pattern when *printed* (not on screen).
This is an entirely different effect. The "stripey scroll bars" in
ScreenCams is to do with the video card being incompatible with the
ScreenCam software. The checkerboard effect on static graphics is
normal. I believe it happens with bitmaps and is to do with trying to
change something from one pixel resolution (the screen) to another
(the bitmap graphic).
A simple hypothetical example will illustrate this. If you can imagine
a screen image of 3x3 pixels and you make a bitmap with a resolution
of 6x3 dots then each screen pixel will be represented by 2 bitmap
dots in each direction. However, suppose your bitmap resolution is 5x5
dots. 2 dots are allocated to each of the first two screen pixels,
leaving only one dot for the third pixel. So the third pixel comes out
looking half as wide as the other two. This is basically what happens
when scrollbar pixels are converted to bitmaps. The precise
checkerboard effect is to do with the bitmap resolution and how it
allocates it's 'thick' and 'thin' portions.
I think this is correct. It certainly isn't a bug.
Mark
==
_________________________________________________________
Mark Magennis | Information Developer
FM Systems Ltd. |
Leopardstown Office Park | Tel: +353 (0)1 295 2549
Foxrock, Dublin 18 | Fax: +353 (0)1 295 2554
Ireland | markmagennis -at- yahoo -dot- com
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
