On Mon 31. March 2003 19:53, you wrote:
> Martin Dressler wrote:
> > I made some investigations in last days and find why my textures look
> > so bad when scaled down to 128x128 textures compared to textures
> > generated by perl scripts (writen by Andy?)
>
> Uh, once upon a time, yeah. They're terrible hacks; not exactly my
> best work. :)
But works good, I only don't like, that it is perl :o)
>
> > The problem isn't in scaling, because these scripts scale down too,
> > but the diference is in how gimp render lines and ghostscript render
> > lines.
>
> No, it's the scaling. Ghostscript doesn't do antialiasing at all, it
> just colors whole pixels. The scripts use gs to rasterize the image
> at 4x (or even 16x, to get the whole 8 bit gray range) resolution and
> then downsample to the target resolution using ImageMagick's mogrify
> program.
So it mean that gimp use bad antialiasing or render lines in some bad way.
Because Gimp scale with the same quality as ImageMagic.
>
> > Is it posibble to change these scripts to produce dials with fully
> > transparent background, or give them some texture to render on it.
>
> The original scripts hack in alpha by using a chroma key. If you draw
> anything in pure blue (I think), it'll come out transparent. This
> actually exploits Ghostscript's inability to do sub-pixel rendering.
> I think the alpha stuff was actually done with a tiny C program, but I
> forget. :)
A tiny perl program.
So if I delete background, It will render in white on pure blue and after
scale down I will get transparent layer with white lines only. It is exactly
what i wanted.
I have one more question. Is it posible and how to specify color in
postscript by RGB components?
Thank,
Madr
--
Martin Dressler
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.musicabona.com/
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
