I have tried your code and I find that it's a great improvement in terms of consistent thickness for thin lines, whether those lines are hard or soft edged; it's much more fun and predictable. I actually prefer it for pixeling, because those 2-pixel-wide dabs constitute a majority of the work on a pixel piece. The only lack is the inability to paint at a 1px detail level (again, not only for hard edged brushes; your patches effectively 'thicken' all <2px brushes to approximately 2px).
IMO the logical way to turn off AA is by checking whether the brush 'antialiasing' value is < 0.001. I haven't spotted a fast way to do that yet. On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Micael <[email protected]> wrote: > @Martin: The final deltas calculate the difference between the "rr" value > at the farthest and nearest positions inside the pixel to get an idea of > how much should we fade out the pixel. Since this value can be <1 (but > never <0 since rr_far is always >= rr_near), we make it so that it will > always be >=1, so that the final division will always fade out the pixel, > instead of fade it in (dividing by >=0 <1). This also makes sure that a > division by zero will never occur. > > @David: antialising is all about removing hard edges, and since currently > the patch doesn't offer an option to disable the AA codepath, it's > currently impossible to guarantee "pixel-snapped" edges. At most you can > guarantee that a dab with diameter of <=1.0 will never occupy more than 4 > pixels (if painting near a pixel's "vertex"). > > The experimental/1pixel definitely needs a snap-to-pixel-no-aa option so > that the brush will always paint at a pixel's center, and not go through > the AA codepath. > > The AA-attempt code also needs to be fixed to not allow <=0 radius dabs. > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:49 PM, David Gowers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >for example "experimental/1pixel" is now >> >broader than 1 pixel. (Not our most important brush.) >> >> That seems ok as long as it's possible for me to fix it to actually be >> 1pixel again; or at least that proper hard-edged dab rendering is still >> possible. >> >> I'll check out if that is the case ASAP. >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Martin Renold <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> hi Micael >>> hi David >>> >>> I think your patch is good now. But it affects existing brushes. >>> >>> David (or anyone else working on brushes): could you please test your >>> brushes with this branch? >>> >>> https://gitorious.org/~mdias/mypaint/mdiass-mypaint/commits/master >>> git clone git://gitorious.org/~mdias/mypaint/mdiass-mypaint.git >>> >>> I would like to know if it's okay to use this for 1.1, or if we better >>> do it >>> after the release, to give more time to check and re-tune brushes. Most >>> brushes profit from this change I think, especially dynamic ink brushes. >>> >>> Some are definitively changed, for example "experimental/1pixel" is now >>> broader than 1 pixel. (Not our most important brush.) >>> >>> Some small sharp ink brushes may look a bit blurred now. I have noticed >>> this >>> with "deevad/soft_dip_pen" from set #2. Maybe they can be retuned. The >>> settings "hardness", "anti-aliasing" and "opacity" are good candidates. >>> >>> -- >>> Martin Renold >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mypaint-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/mypaint-discuss >>> >> >> > > > -- > Micael Dias >
_______________________________________________ Mypaint-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/mypaint-discuss
