@Moini: what OS/inkscape version?

@hiccup: does copy/paste work correctly for you with the x11 version? That can be a source of confusion, it's making bitmap copies with 96 dpi on Mac with XQuartz, dunno about x11.

See our FAQ: https://inkscape.org/en/learn/faq/#copy ... es-objects

Linux Mint 18.3, 0.92.3.

No, I can't cite any references. It's just a fact of life that if you scale a raster image, it will pixelate. I have heard people say that scaling down a raster image won't pixelate it, but I've never been able to accomplish any scaling of a raster image, without degrading the sharpness. I suppose I could say that scaling down doesn't seem to pixelate as badly as scaling up. But I still can notice it.

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it "keeps all of its data". What data? Pixels, dpi, the string of (seemingly) random characters which defines the raster image?

I mean, like Moini says, you can zoom into a raster image and see the pixels. You can see the pixels very, VERY clearly if you use the Blocky (optimize speed) option, on import. If you use any of the other options, it might be harder to see the actual pixels.

If you scale the image, it looks to me like the pixels get larger (and scale down they get smaller). So if you scale a raster image within Inkscape, the DPI must be changing. The pixels are getting larger or smaller, but the number of pixels remains the same.

Using the XML Editor, I can see that scaling a raster image doesn't change the string of seemingly random characters. Maybe that's what you mean by keeping the data?

Brynn, in Inkscape, if you use the handles to scale a raster image, it just makes it look smaller, it keeps all image data points. Inkscape does not edit raster images. This is in concordance with your observations in the XML editor.

@Moini - well, according to the FAQ, copy/paste on OSX *rasterizes vectors.* but this was already a raster, what it did was *reduce its quality/resolution" -- i guess because it uses screen capture instead of looking at the actual data in the clipboard? doesn't make sense to me because i right-click copied a png from a webpage, so the clipboard had the full resolution. there was no "screen" for x11 to "capture", and i don't know why it would think it would need to since it wasn't a vector.

@Brynn - think of embedding a raster as saying "draw all these dots in a square with these dimensions." then, if you scale it down, you're saying "put those same dots in a square with these other dimensions." either way, it's still all the same dots. if you zoom in, you can still see them all. a particular rendering at a particular scale may not be able to draw or show them all, but they would be there if you changed the scale or the resolution of the rendering. that's how it works when you import on OSX, or import/cut/paste on other platforms. but the bug on OSX is that it throws away some dots.

It's the same underlying issue, as far as I understand, yes. Are you able to change the pasteboard settings in your installation?

Well I know that if you paste vector contents on a Mac, it rasterizes the pasted content. Are you saying that pasting a raster image damages the raster image? Or that scaling it after you paste it damages it (but doesn't damage non-pasted raster image)?

I'm not sure if that's been known, up until now. At least I haven't heard it.

But if that's the problem, you can avoid it by not using Copy/Paste. As far as I understand, it's more typical to use Duplicate, rather than copy/paste, in graphics. (I have no idea why, but that's what I've been told.) (here in this forum, years ago) Edit menu > Duplicate, or this button in the command bar , or else there's probably a keyboard shortcut (Help menu > Key and Mouse Ref).

I'm sure that must be a big pain for Mac users. It's a llooooong standing bug, which probably means that it's very hard to fix.

hiccup wrote:importing the png allows scaling down without losing quality. it must be the copy/paste that causes the problem. anyone know why they are different?

I concur with Moini... Most likely the Mac copy buffer issue.