Re: [Inkscape-devel] Rendering problem for an object with blur / 0.46 Official vs 209225 vs 20967
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 :-(
--- On Sun, 3/29/09, Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@...528...> wrote:
From: Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@...528...> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Rendering problem for an object with blur / 0.46 Official vs 209225 vs 20967 To: "Inkscape Devel List" inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Sunday, March 29, 2009, 6:41 AM worms invasion wrote:
... For all the reasons explained above, I think that,
although done with
the best intention, the fact that the blur/filter
display "average
quality" has changed results in the opposite effect
as the one
intended. It seems to me that, at the moment, there
are more SVG "done
with 0.46" than "done with O.47', and that the case I
am describing
will arrive for a long, long time...
If I missed an obvious point, I'd very much like to
hear it.
I don't think you missed anything, and perhaps we should rethink the default setting of the filter quality, but the fact remains that for people with not-so-fast machines the best filter quality simply isn't an option when interacting with the graphics. (And it is in fact not uncommon for drawing programs to have low-quality rendering modes.)
So, assuming that simply removing the lower quality settings is (currently) not an option, what do you think is an acceptable way of decreasing the quality in exchange for speed?
Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:09:49 -0700 (PDT) worms invasion <wormsxulla@...36...> kirjoitti:
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 :-(
The current defaults (Blur quality: Average and Filter quality: Better) should give precisely the same results as 0.46 release with objects that haven't been rotated nor skewed and only slightly worse results with objects that have been rotated/skewed. Also, it should be at least as fast/slow as it was in 0.46.
The only problem I can see with this is that what is now called "Average" is lower quality that what 0.46 did call "Average"
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.)
participants (3)
-
Jasper van de Gronde -
Niko Kiirala -
worms invasion