Thanks for the reply and help!
In my testing ... i have used and tried fit to box... but it is always proportional.
It is the same as "fixed width and height" (which is also proportional, but adds the fill color)
All rescale options are always proportional:
# Rescale to maximum width and height
# Rescale to exact width and height
# Rescale to fit width
# Rescale to fit height
But there are times when working with galleries that you would want a thumbnails to be an exact width and height based on the layout of your website. Even if it is NOT proportional, the thumbnail is so small it wont matter. The point of having the image exact width and height (stretch to fit) is so the layout is not broken by different size images.
Because a portrait image (longer height, shorter width) or landscape image (longer width, shorter height) will both resize differently when using fit to box.
Both were resized to fit to box, but when in a layout on a website, this would mess up spacing and positioning, because one is longer in width and the other is longer in height.
This would make a multi cloumn layout break, due to improper spacing, and would not float correctly (css floats). That is why when making a catalog (results page), the thumbnails are a specif width and height.
So when they are listed in a multi-column view, the products, or gallery thumbnails can be displayed equally, without breaking apart the layout.
Notice that the left column has the images exact width and height (stretch to fit) so the thumbs can be displayed in columns and rows that are evenly spaced?
This is why it would be good to have a stretch to fit feature, so no matter what the gallery or image creation it could be accomplished using your great product: Digital File Pro 2.