Well suppose I have a Rectangle with a size of 100x100 and stroke-width of 1, 
and I apply a scale transform to zoom in to 150%.

Then I would like to see a size of 150x150 pixels and still see a sharp border 
stroke, let's say with a width of 2 pixels.

I'm not sure how I could apply a snapping transformation to just correct stroke 
widths and not disturb the size of the shapes themselves.

Cheers,
Rob

-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] Im Auftrag von 
Tom Eugelink
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Juni 2014 11:42
An: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
Betreff: Re: Blurry strokes and zooming via scale transforms


I recently had a similar situation, but then because certain properties were 
calculated-via-binding and the resulting value was not "snapped" to good values 
either.

This resulted in my suggestion to allow custom calculations in bindings, which 
would then snap the value.
https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-37255

And transformations on such values have the same effect of course. I was 
wondering, similar to the binding suggestion, would it be possible to apply a 
snapping transformation as the last transformation?

Tom


On 2014-6-12 10:56, Robert Fisher wrote:
> Hi all,
>   
> I'm trying to avoid the blurry strokes you can get in JavaFX in some cases, 
> e.g. for a non-integer stroke width, or a stroke width of 1 and 
> StrokeType.CENTERED.
>   
> So far my 'solution' to this problem has been to round layout values to 
> integers, or to round and add 0.5 in the StrokeType.CENTERED case.
>   
> However this approach is pretty useless if I apply a scale transform 
> afterwards, which is the simplest way I know to create a zooming mechanism.
>   
> So my question is: is there any way I can round things to integer values 
> *after* transforms have been applied? Or tell the renderer to not try to 
> approximate strokes drawn 'off-pixel' but instead to round & move them to the 
> nearest pixel so that lines look sharp and clean?
>   
> Any tips would be appreciated.
>   
> Cheers,
> Rob



Reply via email to