Re: [Inkscape-devel] New anti aliasing techniques for 2d rendering

-- PS. Check out the Brush newsletter: *Subscribe or read our previous newsletters* http://brush.co.nz/articles Bryan Hoyt, *Web Development Manager* -- Brush Technology *Ph:* +64 3 942 7833 *Mobile:* +64 21 238 7955 *Web:* brush.co.nz On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 04:45, Juan Vuletich <juan@...2357...> wrote: > Bryan Hoyt | Brush Technology wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:06, Juan Vuletich <juan@...2357... mailto: > 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? >> > > Ok. Did it. Take a look at > http://www.jvuletich.org/Morphic3/tigerWholePixel.png . I think it is > closer to the subpixel rendered version than to Inkscape. > > But I did something else. I opened the web page on several displays. Tried > it in 3 LCD screens, with both DVI and VGA interfaces, and at native > resolution and at lower resolution. In all cases the subpixel rendered > version shows less pixellation and less color artifacts. Then I tried on 2 > 15" CRT screens, one Trinitron and the other regular, at 1024x768 and at > 800x600. The whole pixel version looks consistently better than the Inkscape > rendering, although both show some colored shadows that are due to the > misalignment between logical pixels, the display's color mask and the actual > colored phosphor on the screen. The subpixel version looks less pixellated > and also with a slight colored shadow, but in different places. Overall, I > find the subpixel version to also look better in these 2 CRT displays! > Finally, I tried on an OLPC XO, both in color and b/w modes. There, all > alternatives look equally good and it is hard to declare a winner. > > So I say that given that the majority of displays sold and in use are RGB > LCDs, given that it makes sense to obtain the highest possible quality from > the best and most used displays, and given that the subpixel version looks > better even in CRTs and doesn't hurt in the XO; it is advisable to use the > subpixel version on any display, at least as a default. > > When hardware can tell us about the physical geometry of the pixels, then > software might make a better choice automatically. > > > 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. >> > > Well, no. My algorithms allows for easily using different filters and > different pixel geometries. So, even if using a 1 pixel step filter and no > subpixel position, and giving similar results to conventional renderers, it > would still be using different algorithms. BTW, in my work, all coordinates > are float, and it supports subpixel positioning with float precision, > regardless of the sampling grid and the filter. I'm not sure if Inkscape > does this. AGG claims to do it. > > > However, it would be nice to see subpixel rendering in Inkscape, so I >> applaud your project. >> >> 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? >> > > Well, as I said before, I believe subpixel rendering is better on almost > all displays in use, and should be generally adopted. Even if you decide to > turn it off, my filter gives better results (as shown by > tigerWholePixel.png), and you also have the seam removal from polygon edges > (as shown by the last Clinton image). > > > Good work, and don't take my questions as criticisms! >> >> - Bryan >> >> > Thanks. I welcome criticism too! > > > Cheers, > Juan Vuletich >