You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm encountering an issue with sixel previews when using chafa. It seems that the size setting is not being applied correctly to images with portrait orientation, resulting in tearing on the current screen. I'm using the following command in my previewer to display images: command chafa -f sixel --optimize=9 -s "$2x$3" --animate off --polite on "$1"
One example of an image causing issues is the following:
Interestingly, removing the -f sixel option resolves the issue:
Alternatively, substituting $3 with a low enough magic number, we can display the image without disrupting the current screen.
I'm testing this on iTerm2. However, on the same machine, I experience a different issue in the VSCode terminal. The images displayed there appear to be smaller than the available space for some reason. Also in this case, removing the -f sixel, the size of the image seems to be adjusted correctly.
Has anyone else encountered a similar issue?
Cheers
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello,
I'm encountering an issue with sixel previews when using chafa. It seems that the size setting is not being applied correctly to images with portrait orientation, resulting in tearing on the current screen. I'm using the following command in my previewer to display images:
command chafa -f sixel --optimize=9 -s "$2x$3" --animate off --polite on "$1"
One example of an image causing issues is the following:
Interestingly, removing the
-f sixel
option resolves the issue:Alternatively, substituting $3 with a low enough magic number, we can display the image without disrupting the current screen.
I'm testing this on iTerm2. However, on the same machine, I experience a different issue in the VSCode terminal. The images displayed there appear to be smaller than the available space for some reason. Also in this case, removing the
-f sixel
, the size of the image seems to be adjusted correctly.Has anyone else encountered a similar issue?
Cheers
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: