Have to wonder though - would just having "zoom tables" be more memory efficient than replicating an object massively oversized?
I guess a zoom table for a 100 pixel wide object could potentially be 10,000 entries or make it 20,000 if you want to represent each size from 1 pixel to 200 wide.
Doing it the 256 per pixel way to allow that method of pick and place would come to 25,600 bytes.
I suppose it comes down to what zoom factors, is there more emphasis on enlarge or reduce mode? The advantage of a zoom table might be that you only need one and it can be used for multiple objects, though you'd probably need to align each object on some address boundary.
Another possibility - with graphics card textures on PCs, not sure if it's still done - they keep multiple copies of each texture, each one 50% reduced from the previous. Once the displayed size drops to 50% it starts using the next reduced size.
Edited by Rybags, Tue May 16, 2017 10:37 PM.