Hi again, You made a good point .. I didn't think to try viewing the image with Batik. As expected, it looked the same in Squiggle as the PNG output did in my browser (not good). Since I'm unable to choose how my source SVGs are composed, I'm not really going to be able to do anything about the path circle elements. I'll just have to use an ImageMagick/JMagick combo -- the output looks pretty good, it just doesn't handle background transparency on source SVGs as well as Batik does. :-(
Thanks for your help. Regards, John Parisi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tonny Kohar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Batik Users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:08 PM Subject: Re: Poor quality results rasterizing SVG images (Samples attached). > Hi, > > > Thanks for the reply. I tried turning anti-aliasing off ... by adding > > shape-rendering="crispEdges" > > to the outermost <svg> element. This produces a slightly better image... > > but still not nearly as good as the one ImageMagick produced. > > I think the quality of batik transcoder, it more or less the same with > the renderer it produces. Try to open that svg, in sqguile / svg browser > and see that. The transcoder should be more/less the same quality. If > the quality is still not what you expected try to change the path circle > element into real circle element. > > Regards > Tonny Kohar > -- > Sketsa > SVG Graphics Editor > http://www.kiyut.com > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
