worms invasion wrote:
I don't know, really.
I *am* on not-so-fast machine myself, and seeing so many "legacy" drawings being degraded this way is... awful. I just can't imagine all the people who will encounter the same experience, and what they will think about Inkscape.
What worries me, is that it will force everyone to use "better" or "best", when obviously they don't need it *really*, in fact. Not everyone uses advanced filters. Where is the benefit?
I can't, I really can't work on awful renderings like what 0.47 shows, and using a better filter quality puts my machine down. Inkscape has become unusable for me. The dramatic change in the "average quality" is a total turn off :-(
Maybe the blur and filter qualities could be stored on a per-document basis, and not for Inkscape itself? Maybe Inkscape could recognize that the file was created with This or That version, and issue a warning of some sort in that case when opening the file, saying "this file was created with an earlier version of Inkscape, the average blur and filter quality will be set to better for this file". These "old" files do not contain advanced filters as 0.47 allows them, anyway, so the performance degradation should not be noticeable and the rendering will be correct on canvas, allowing proper editing?
I don't know what would then happen if the user would want to add the (awesome) new filters to the "old" file.
I don't know :-(
I'm afraid there is a slight misunderstanding about what the filter quality does. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with what filters you use (and I believe it actually has no effect at all on many filters). In the specific case of blur it has the effect that the image to be filtered is first downsampled, then filtered and then upsampled again. This causes the stair case effect. Usually it's not so pronounced, but in your case it's particularly bad.
(As far as I'm aware there has been no recent change in this behaviour though.)