On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 17:10, bulia byak wrote:
On 11/9/06, Andrew S. Townley <atownley@...16...> wrote:
While I appreciate Inkscape's ability to be flexible for more free-hand or free-form artistic expression, I would like to see a way for it to not be quite so clever. If I have a 64x64 rectangle and I want to stack 6 of them in a stairstep fashion and have each one of them exactly 64 pixels apart (at least while I'm creating the original drawing so I have correct proportions once I resize as needed), I would have hoped there was an easy way to achieve this behavior in Inkscape.
If I understand you correctly, there's a relatively easy way to achieve this. Just snap your shapes to the pixel grid and export at the default 90 dpi, and the result will have no antialiasing at all for vertical and horizontal edges (only diagonal).
It wasn't really an antialiasing problem, I don't think. It probably was a problem with me vs. the snap capabilities of Inkscape. I tried to use pixels for the grid and turned on, in various combinations, snap to grid and snap to object, but neither seemed to give me consistent results. I'd get positions of fractional pixels. I'm sure I just didn't know what I was doing...
Export wasn't really the issue. I wanted the original master as SVG so I could scale it to different sizes and then export as bitmaps, but I needed the various individual pieces to line up exactly in the original SVG.
I've pulled together some screenshots of a simple example and of part of what I was trying to do as SVG. In doing so, I noticed something that I hadn't noticed before. If you look closely at the lines in both pictures, the "touching" lines are thicker than the external lines. Ideally, I would've liked to have them the same, but in most cases, the image is small enough that you wouldn't notice it. I realize that you end up discussing "inside" vs. "outside" dimensions from a coordinate system point of view, so if you have one 64x64 box starting at (0,0) with a 1px stroke, that stroke should arguably be lines at pixels 0 & 64 in both the x and y directions. If you then positioned the second one at (0, 64), then I wouldn't expect the common line to be twice as wide, but it appears that is the case in the example (http://atownley.org/wip/grid-snap-example.jpg). I've positioned the set on the right as accurately as I could using the x, y, w & h parameters. On the left, this was as close as I could get them to snap with the default settings.
Maybe I'm just confused on how it is supposed to work, but any comments/suggestions would be appreciated. BTW, I love Inkscape and I'm not trying to be over-critical. I'm just trying to figure out how to get the results I expect as efficiently as possible.
Thanks in advance,
ast
Oh, the shot of what I was really trying to achieve is here: http://atownley.org/wip/sg-example1.jpg.