Fuzzy brushes (was "Ready for 4.8.0-rc1?")

[Stephen Woodbridge]

Sean Gillies wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> I just checked again with one of my mapfiles. I have a graticule  
> shapefile as a line type layer, ANTIALIASING TRUE and symbol 0 in the  
> style, but no sign of antialiasing happening. Is there more to it  than 
> that?

Sean, Try removing the symbol 0

Steve, what is the interaction of antialiasing with symbols? Does size 
now work without symbol if AA is true?

-Steve W.

> Sean
> 
> On Jan 3, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Steve Lime wrote:
> 
>> Try it now. I had a small problem with the trivial (1 pixel wide)  
>> case and =
>> antialiasing. My test cases run fine now. This should be enough to  get =
>> single pixel aa lines:
>>
>> STYLE
>>   COLOR r g b
>>   ANTIALIAS TRUE
>> END
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>>>> Sean Gillies <sgillies at FRII.COM> 01/02/06 11:35 PM >>>
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> What about 1-pixel wide antialiases lines? I was trying that out  last 
>> =20
>> night, but didn't see any effect. Do we have to have width > 2 to  get 
>> =20
>> antialiasing?
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Steve Lime wrote:
>>
>>> Paul (et al.): I've played around with these a ton recently. I did  =20
>>> change =3D
>>> the brush creation algorithm to more closely approximate Photoshop  =20
>>> or Gimp =3D
>>> and the brushes look quite nice. The stair steps still persist at =20
>>> some =3D
>>> angles. I'm convinced it is a problem in GD. Brushes w/alpha =20
>>> transparency =3D
>>> seem to suffer from aggregation effects of repeated alpha  blending. =20
>>> For =3D
>>> example, you can create a  circular brush with alpha=3D3D64 (50% =20
>>> transparent)=3D
>>>  and if you draw with it the resulting line is *much* darker than =20
>>> you =3D
>>> would expect. This has an unfuzzing effect. As as result the =20
>>> "jaggies" you =3D
>>> see in unantialiased lines persist. Off to poke around in GD now.
>>>
>>> A work in progress...
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>>>> Paul Spencer <pspencer at DMSOLUTIONS.CA> 12/22/05 6:54 AM >>>
>>>
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> I have a question about fuzzy brushes.  Your test case looks  really =20
>>> =3D20
>>> good.  We tried this on our tiger map file in ka-Map and the =20
>>> results =3D20
>>> are less impressive.  It seems to work well for lines that are =20
>>> close =3D20
>>> to 45 degrees, but for lines that are closer to the vertical or =3D20
>>> horizontal, there is still a noticeable stairstep effect.  Did you  
>>> =3D20
>>> try other angles on the line?  From what you said, my  understanding =20
>>> =3D20
>>> is that this could be affected by the default hardness that you =20
>>> have =3D20
>>> chosen?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 22-Dec-05, at 12:08 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>>
>>>> Our planned date for 4.8.0rc1 is today (Thursday Dec 22nd). Are  we =20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> good to go? Did you still have work to do on the fuzzy brushes  Steve?
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>> --=3D20
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>  Daniel Morissette               dmorissette at dmsolutions.ca
>>>>  DM Solutions Group              http://www.dmsolutions.ca/
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
>>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>> |Paul Spencer                           pspencer at dmsolutions.ca   |
>>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>> |Applications & Software Development                              |
>>> |DM Solutions Group Inc                 http://www.dmsolutions.ca/|
>>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Sean Gillies
>> sgillies at frii dot com
>> http://zcologia.com/news
> 
>