RaphaŽl Quinet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:35:03 -0800 (PST), Gezim Hoxha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm really frustrated with the storke tool in gimp
> > 1.3.23, and I hope it's because of my ignorance.
> > Almost all selections (except rectangular ones) turn
> > out really ugly when storked...here is an example with
> > a circle 
> >  http://www.geocities.com/hgezim/stroke.html 
> 
> The circle is converted to line segments for stroking, and
> unfortunately there are not enough of them (12 here) so the
> results are ugly.  Ideally, it should be possible to configure
> how close the segments fit the shape of the selection.  It
> would also be nice to configure if the stroking is done inside,
> outside or on both sides of the edges of the selection.

RaphaŽl, you are on the wrong track. It is not an issue of "not enough
line segments".

Right now there never is an ellipse, we are talking about converting
an roughly ellipse shaped blob delimited by vertical and horizontal
lines to something that has slanted lines at its boundary.
Additional restriction is, that the lines have to end in integer
coordinates.

I tried to use a modified Douglas Peucker Algorithm to do this, and
since I want to catch 45 degree lines, I have to use a tolerance of at
least sqrt(2)/2. I fiddeled around a bit and came up what is in 1.3.23.

I now have reverted that stuff in CVS, since the old stuff fails in
a more predictable way, and ellipses look a bit more like ellipses,
although either aliased (or very bad anti aliasing) and uneven stroke
widths.

This stuff is discussed in Bug #50730.

> Anyway, there is a workaround that should allow you to get a
> better circle until some new options are added for stroking
> selections: just convert the selection to a path, then stroke
> the path.  The results should look a bit better.

Yep.

> Note that
> you will probably need to double the stroke width because
> that parameter is not interpreted in the same way for selections
> and for paths.  Also, you may have to adjust the radius of your
> circle (another difference, probably related to stroking inside
> or on both sides of the line segments).

Uh, simply <Image>->Select->None before stroking the path, then
everything will be interpreted as you expected earlier. This is
not an issue of parameters being interpreted in a different manner.

Bye,
        Simon
-- 
      [EMAIL PROTECTED]       http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to