Jasper van de Gronde wrote:
Juan Vuletich wrote:
... A lot of experimenting showed me that the shape of the filter is not that important for most images. It does come into play for synthetic images created especially to show aliasing effects. (And as you say, ringing effects would be much worse than lack of smoothness). What is really important for vector graphics is the spatial size of the pixel, related to the "cutoff frequency" (even if step filters don't have a real cutoff frequency). Both pixel coverage and super sampling produce a filter that is one pixel in size. This is not low enough to avoid aliasing, as it doesn't take into account the Kell factor.
Makes sense, although I guess there is a fine line between making the image just smooth enough to avoid visual artifacts and simply blurring the image a little.
Indeed! I use to play a lot with the size of the filter on different LCD screens. In fact, in my samples, you can see a bit ot pixellation in the whiskers of the lion. The filter that makes that disappear makes all the image too blurry.
...
- No seams!
- Allow compositing AFTER rasterizing, still without seams.
- Rasterization not much slower than normal rasterization.
- Compositing not much slower than normal compositing.
- No or very little additional memory usage.
My technique has most those properties. But it does need extra memory.
I guess we'll have to be a bit patient then. BTW, the extra memory can be a problem, unless it's a really, really small overhead.
Let us know when you've got some more details to look at.
Will do. Thanks for all your feedback!
Cheers, Juan Vuletich