On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:06, Juan Vuletich <juan@...2357...> wrote:

rendering, but the Inkscape versions shown side-by-side don't, it doesn't seem like it's a fair comparison.

But then, fair comparison would be to turn on subpixel rendering on Inkscape. Can that be done?

I don't believe it can be done.

Could you tweak your program to turn off subpixel rendering, and give us the same samples with subpixel turned off in both?

How can I claim mi technique is better if I disable its advantages? If I did as you say, someone could say, "hey Inkscape does just only 1 pixel wide anti aliasing. could you tweak your filter to do that, to do a fair comparison?" Then, my results would be exactly those of Inkscape, and I'd kill all the progress I did!

Sorry, it sounds like I misunderstood the intent of your algorithm -- I understood it as having advantages for non-subpixel rendering, and the subpixel stuff was just an extra bonus. But it sounds like the subpixel rendering is the main advantage of your algorithm. Is that right?

You did mention "The geometry of the pixels (i.e. the sample positions) is a parameter to the rasterized. It is pretty easy to adapt it to any target or turn it

off completely". In light of how I now understand it, turning off subpixel geometry would mean turning off your algorithm altogether.

However, I believe many people use Inkscape for creating, not primarily for viewing, and fairly often for exporting (at least, that's how I use it). When you're creating an image file for other people to view, you generally want it be compatible with all types of screens. I use Inkscape mostly for web work, which means I can't use subpixel rendering at all. So I guess that means I can't really benefit from your rendering technique?