That the above command works fine is a highlight for what Mister Osuch might want to leave alone in the code. The bug he might want to feed or cultivate in the code won't be very friendly if he tries to fix what works (which is always multiples of i, but that bug works fine). Finagle's Third Law: In any collection of data, the figure most obviously correct, beyond all need of checking, is the mistake. No mathematic reason is to prefer a power of two over the metric definition of _megapixel_ other than matters of convenience and maximal use of the screen. It's also slightly conservativ to accomodate the time for saving it. It's easy to work out that 512 by 512 is a quarter of that. I seem to hav learned too late that I prefer batch mode, but maybe that's because I would hav had to use my brain to come up with 600*525 as an even division of 2400*1575 (that's about the maximum that PSP will handle in truecolor (and this is not for lack of either RAM or virtual memory), so I want to check out The Gimp for Win32s). As to how I might encode the method, I'm not sure it's worth doing. In particular, if a specified dimension is larger than the screen and prime, then I am inevitably left with a window that is a remainder of dividing the specified dimension by the screen's maximum. The relevant calculations would be like y_multiples_output=width/800 . For the size of the bottom screen, I would take the remainder. For the size of the bottom screen in cartesian coordinates I would re-do the calculation, but y_multiples_input would be a float. In case you're missing my point, there should only be two output numbers from the viewwindows screen, and if you feel like trying to kill two birds with one of those stones in the soup, then you could connect that form to the batch creation code. If you felt adventurous, then you could re-write the batch-job creation code to write self-contained batch jobs, where the parameter files and formulas were embedded in a long echo to the console. (Heh. Heh. I should ensure that I can do this by hand, because I recently discovered that copying a concatenation of files to the console won't pipe through more under DOS. I *knew* that a purpose was for ^z in the middle of an ASCII file, but I doubt that I can echo a very long line through the pipe without an extra tool. Perhaps I can do the embedding with a dependency on the filename and formulas that read as comments to batch language). I would do it myself, but what I'm doing works, and English is much more fun than FORTRAN (although I am curious about what sqrt(0,2) is when, to the literal eye, this involves a division by zero), and I still feel like I'm leaving too many things hanging to be picking up a compiler that's probably more powerful than the Borland one that I seem to hav lost (and that probably won't compile for Linux without a major upgrade). _______ No faster way is to get things done than to always giv jobs to the person who looks too busy to handle them. They'll burn out, but it's better to burn out than fade away. Rise up...gather round... --Def Leppard