John Hunter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> I'm stumped. It looks like the code (and even the inputs to
>> draw_text_image) are virtually identical, modulo the differences between Agg
>> 2.3 and 2.4. Maybe the change is in Agg, and
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm stumped. It looks like the code (and even the inputs to
> draw_text_image) are virtually identical, modulo the differences between Agg
> 2.3 and 2.4. Maybe the change is in Agg, and 2.4 is theoretically more
> c
I'm stumped. It looks like the code (and even the inputs to
draw_text_image) are virtually identical, modulo the differences between
Agg 2.3 and 2.4. Maybe the change is in Agg, and 2.4 is theoretically
more correct? We can always experiment with different kernels and
parameters until findin
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They don't look non-antialiased to me (in your attachment or a file I
> generated locally). Remember, the rotation happens in raster (not vector)
> space, because that was the path of least resistance, but is a bit of
They don't look non-antialiased to me (in your attachment or a file I
generated locally). Remember, the rotation happens in raster (not
vector) space, because that was the path of least resistance, but is a
bit of a hack.
The difference is that the trunk appears slightly darker than 0.91.x.
On the trunk, it appears that font anti-aliasing is turned off on
rotated text, as in this example:
n [26]: import datetime
In [27]: dt = datetime.date.today()
In [28]: dates = [dt-datetime.timedelta(days=i) for i in range(10)]
In [29]: plot(dates, range(10))
Out[29]: []
# after rotation the f
