After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 170200 - Set Image Print Resolution dialog botches units
Set Image Print Resolution dialog botches units
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: GIMP
Classification: Other
Component: User Interface
2.2.x
Other All
: Normal normal
: 2.2
Assigned To: GIMP Bugs
GIMP Bugs
: 302114 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2005-03-13 15:24 UTC by J H Ettle
Modified: 2008-01-15 12:49 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description J H Ettle 2005-03-13 15:24:03 UTC 
Please describe the problem:
I have an image size 2048 x 1367 to be printed at 210 mm wide. When I enter an
image size in the Set Image Print Resolution dialog, with the resolution unit
set at pixels/mm and size unit set to millimetres, the dialog interprets the
sizes as inches.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Open Image > Print Size...
2. In resolution section, choose "pixels/mm" and click OK.
3. Open Image > Print Size... again. Size units are now in millimetres.
4. Enter 210 in Width, click in Height to maintain aspect. Note that resolution
is calculated correctly.
5. Click OK.
6. Open Image > Print Size... once more. 

Actual results:
Size now reads 5335.11 mm by 3561.08 mm; the dialog thought that "210" entered
previously was in inches.

Expected results:
Image width reported as 210 mm.

Does this happen every time?
Yes.

Other information:
To work around this, make sure resolution is listed in "pixels/in". Then, when
entering the size, choose "millimetres" as the units and type in the size.
Comment 1 Sven Neumann 2005-03-13 19:50:33 UTC 
Fixed in both branches:

2005-03-13  Sven Neumann  <sven@gimp.org>

        * app/dialogs/print-size-dialog.c (print_size_dialog_response):
        handle the resolution unit correctly, fixes bug #170200.
Comment 2 Sven Neumann 2005-04-27 12:24:57 UTC 
*** Bug 302114 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***