Flavio Hendry wrote: > > As far as I see, if you specify AGG, all is AGG ... Looks a lot smoother > (if not to say fantasitc). To me AGG is slightly slower. However, as the > image quality is far higher, images tend to get larger anyway. >
I don't know all of the internal details, but the GD library is still used for some things even if you select the AGG renderer. I will also agree that AGG looks much better. You get auto aliasing by default on everything, not just text labels (which I think may be all that GD gave you, but I could be wrong). I have read comments that AGG is somewhat slower, but I don't have any data myself. I can get the performance that I need with AGG, so given its superior output, that's what I go with. - Rich -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Some-questions-to-AGG-and-GD-rendering-tp15954547p15963464.html Sent from the Mapserver - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ mapserver-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
