Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • 1
    Also if your image was the exact size as specified in the <Image> tag, then it wouldn't have to scale it and should render it crisply. Commented Feb 26, 2009 at 21:42
  • 1
    I'm not sure this will have the desired effect at a different DPI Commented Feb 27, 2009 at 3:20
  • 1
    Beardo, both the source graphic and the <Image> are both 20 pixels by 20 pixels. As I understand it, the issue comes from WPF. It sort-of wants to disregard the pixel grid of the monitor, so it's logical grid usually won't perfectly line up with the physical grid. Commented Mar 2, 2009 at 15:22
  • 10
    @Zack Width="20" does not mean 20 pixels. It means 20/96 of an inch. If your OS is configured to run at 96 DPI then it is 20 pixels. Now how will your nearest neighbor look on a good monitor, 160 DPI for instance? And how will it look when you print at 300 DPI? You shouldn't optimize for your dev machine. Commented Apr 29, 2010 at 2:36
  • 2
    I also found that for pixel-sized images NearestNeighbor is much better than HighQuality, especially if you combine it with img.Width = imgSource.PixelWidth; img.Height = imgSource.PixelHeight. My client provided some images with different crazy DPI values and I couldn't ask the client to convert them all, so I had to use this hack. Commented Nov 28, 2012 at 20:44