8.7.2014 8.52 kirjoitti Michael Grosberg <grosberg.michael@...400...>:

Krzysztof Kosiński <tweenk.pl@...360...> writes:

...

We could do three things a) put in some logic to arbitrarily stop rendering an effect when the dependent area crosses some threshold b) use stacked box blur instead of true Gaussian blur (though I doubt it would be faster) c) speed up the existing Gaussian blur implementation - it shouldn't be that slow

Regards, Krzysztof

If it's OK to contribute my two cents as a user, I would prefer loss of quality in the work area over a slowdown. If for example zooming in to a blurred shape would make large chunky pixels visible, that is still better than having to contend with a slow system. So if you have a way of replacing the blurred object with a static bitmap instead of having to recalculate the blur every time the display changes, that would be acceptable. I'm talking about the work area display only, of course, not bitmap export.

BTW, I've been working with Inkscape in a production environment for years but lately I've upped my usage even more and I'm using it almost all day. Even though I have the latest version of Illustrator installed I still vastly prefer Inkscape - it is so much easier to work with.

It's likely quite a forgotten thing, but filters as they stand, do contain a crude method along these lines. If you go into settings, you can drop the filters rendering quality, which will limit the rendering resolution when editing. You will get quite notable artifacts, but it's vastly faster in many cases.

There are a couple quality settings available in the filtering code. It could be useful to look into those and see if there's some better default combination than what we have now.