I'm using Inkscape 4.7 Pre 3 on OS X Leopard.
I'm designing for the web, so for the most part, I'd like to have integer X and Y values for my shapes. Editing each point every time I drop a shape is frustrating. I've found that I can set the grid to 1px with major lines at 5px and Inkscape will tend to to the right thing when drawing rectangles or using the pen tool, but not always. There are still times when I have to edit X and Y by entering it into the spinner.
Also, if I group objects and clone them. Not all of the objects retain an integer X/Y. They are off by a little bit.
Are there any other ways to tell Inkscape to round to the nearest pixel?
Alan Gutierrez
Alan Gutierrez wrote the following on 10/10/2009 03:59 PM:
I'm using Inkscape 4.7 Pre 3 on OS X Leopard.
I'm designing for the web, so for the most part, I'd like to have integer X and Y values for my shapes. Editing each point every time I drop a shape is frustrating. I've found that I can set the grid to 1px with major lines at 5px and Inkscape will tend to to the right thing when drawing rectangles or using the pen tool, but not always. There are still times when I have to edit X and Y by entering it into the spinner.
Also, if I group objects and clone them. Not all of the objects retain an integer X/Y. They are off by a little bit.
Are there any other ways to tell Inkscape to round to the nearest pixel?
Alan Gutierrez
Have you heard of PixelSnap by Brian Hoyt? Might be worth a try. :)
http://code.google.com/p/pixelsnap/
heathenx
That is a nice plugin. It installs easily. Works as advertised.
And for posterity, I noticed that my mouse movements are pixel perfect at the 100% zoom level. At the 200% zoom level, the mouse moves in increments of .5. The strange coordinates appear when at some arbitrary zoom level. It is much easier to hit a full pixel when the mouse is moving in increments of .5. I'm now zooming in 100% 200% or 400% and it is easier to stay pixel perfect.
Alan
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM, heathenx <heathenx@...155...> wrote:
Alan Gutierrez wrote the following on 10/10/2009 03:59 PM:
I'm using Inkscape 4.7 Pre 3 on OS X Leopard.
I'm designing for the web, so for the most part, I'd like to have integer X and Y values for my shapes. Editing each point every time I drop a shape is frustrating. I've found that I can set the grid to 1px with major lines at 5px and Inkscape will tend to to the right thing when drawing rectangles or using the pen tool, but not always. There are still times when I have to edit X and Y by entering it into the spinner.
Also, if I group objects and clone them. Not all of the objects retain an integer X/Y. They are off by a little bit.
Are there any other ways to tell Inkscape to round to the nearest pixel?
Alan Gutierrez
Have you heard of PixelSnap by Brian Hoyt? Might be worth a try. :)
http://code.google.com/p/pixelsnap/
heathenx
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 02:16, Alan Gutierrez <alan@...2672...> wrote:
That is a nice plugin. It installs easily. Works as advertised.
And for posterity, I noticed that my mouse movements are pixel perfect at the 100% zoom level. At the 200% zoom level, the mouse moves in increments of .5. The strange coordinates appear when at some arbitrary zoom level. It is much easier to hit a full pixel when the mouse is moving in increments of .5. I'm now zooming in 100% 200% or 400% and it is easier to stay pixel perfect.
You could also try reducing the precision of the numbers stored in the file in Inkscape preferences > SVG output and force snapping by putting the delay at 0 (and possibly increasing the weight) in inkscape preferences > snapping.
JiHO --- http://maururu.net
Alan Gutierrez wrote:
That is a nice plugin. It installs easily. Works as advertised.
And for posterity, I noticed that my mouse movements are pixel perfect at the 100% zoom level. At the 200% zoom level, the mouse moves in increments of .5. The strange coordinates appear when at some arbitrary zoom level. It is much easier to hit a full pixel when the mouse is moving in increments of .5. I'm now zooming in 100% 200% or 400% and it is easier to stay pixel perfect.
Alan
Alan,
I understand what you mean by "pixel perfect". But also for posterity, keep in mind that a pixel is not a little square:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr06/cos426/papers/smith95b.pdf
Albert
But also for posterity, keep in mind that a pixel is not a little square:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr06/cos426/papers/smith95b.pdf
Albert
I thnk the guy lost me here: The resolution-independent coordinate
system for an image is {(x, y) | 0. £ x £ W/H, 0 .£ y £ 1.}, W and H are the
width and height of the image. The resolution dependent coordinate system
places the edges of the pixels on the integers, their centers on the edges plus one
half, the upper left corner on (0., 0.), the upper right on (W., 0.), and the lower left
on (0., H). See the little squares? They would have edges and centers by this formulation.
So I'll have to take your word for it.
--Joe Ward
On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Albert Cardona wrote:
Alan Gutierrez wrote:
That is a nice plugin. It installs easily. Works as advertised.
And for posterity, I noticed that my mouse movements are pixel perfect at the 100% zoom level. At the 200% zoom level, the mouse moves in increments of .5. The strange coordinates appear when at some arbitrary zoom level. It is much easier to hit a full pixel when the mouse is moving in increments of .5. I'm now zooming in 100% 200% or 400% and it is easier to stay pixel perfect.
Alan
Alan,
I understand what you mean by "pixel perfect". But also for posterity, keep in mind that a pixel is not a little square:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr06/cos426/papers/smith95b.pdf
Albert
Albert
The paper you linked me to is entitled "A Pixel Is Not A Little Square, A Pixel Is Not A Little Square, A Pixel Is Not A Little Square!" It is easy to imagine the author saying this while throwing this dinner plate up against the wall. Please, don't mention pixels around Alvy, we don't want a repeat of last Christmas.
I am programmer and I've learned to be incurious when someone tells me "You Are All Wrong, You Are All Wrong, You Are All Wrong!" Even when the person is right, they are usually right in a way that is hard to understand.
More often, they are quibbling. When they say, "I know what you mean, but you're wrong." it usually translates to, "I know what you mean, but that is an abstraction." Computers are a world of "there's more to it than that."
I understand that a pixel is an abstraction. For me, it is suitable abstraction. A pixel is a little square that can hold one color, is enough of an understanding for me to create web graphics that do not unnecessarily dither. (PixelSnap described the problem perfectly.)
I really don't want to put an understanding of monitors before an understanding of, say, the rectangle tool. I have so much to learn about Inkscape already. All I want to do is create web graphics that don't unnecessarily dither, which I am now able to do.
Alan
participants (5)
-
Alan Gutierrez -
Albert Cardona -
heathenx -
JiHO -
Joe Ward