Re: SVG Font quality
As I suspected. The SVG contains tspan elements which are rendered as shapes by 0.92beta to be on the safe side. What you're seeing is only the effect of painting vector graphics (as opposed to painting text). If you zoom in on the text the quality will get better. It doesn't look bad if you print it, does it? Some SVG text elements are difficult to be painted using text operators in PDF so that's when we fall back to painting as shapes (prime example: text on a path). The tspan element in your case are pretty simple which could actually allow painting as text but the code is not that refined, yet. The regression from 0.20.5 can be explained that 0.20.5 didn't care much about tspan elements which could lead to poor output. 0.92 is more careful. On 12.06.2006 18:03:49 Raphael Parree wrote: Jeremias, Attached is the SVG. The PDF viewer I'm using is Adobe Acrobat (7.something). The quality used to be great with the FOP 0.20.5 bundle. I would assume it is a batik problem, if the batik-1.6-squiggle viewer would not show the rendered SVG in the appropriate quality. Cheers., -Original Message- From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 June 2006 09:59 To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: SVG Font quality The GIF helps showing the symptom but not the reason for the problem. Fonts can generally be rendered in two ways: text operations and vector graphics. In your case, I assume the text was rendered as vector graphics. If smooth line art is disabled (or not supported) in your PDF viewer, it could explain the poorer quality. It could help to see your SVG file. But also note that some text elements cannot be painted as text operations, yet. The choice which kind is used depends on the SVG content. On 06.06.2006 13:11:41 Raphael Parree wrote: Hi, I noticed the quality of my fonts in the SVG is noticeably less in 0.92b than in was with 0.20.5. Attached is an example (left is the PDF, right is batik-1.6-squiggle). I am embedding the fonts (Verdana) in my PDF. The SVG is included using defaults (with 72 as the resolution). Any clues? Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SVG Font quality
Jeremias, You are right when zooming in the text looks better, and indeed the printing quality is good. However we also generate a PDF which is used as a presentation and is therefore not printed. Having both a presentation and a book was actually the reason to move to SVG as they scale well in printed form as on screen. :( Will the code be refined in the near future :) Tx., -Original Message- From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 June 2006 08:52 To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: SVG Font quality As I suspected. The SVG contains tspan elements which are rendered as shapes by 0.92beta to be on the safe side. What you're seeing is only the effect of painting vector graphics (as opposed to painting text). If you zoom in on the text the quality will get better. It doesn't look bad if you print it, does it? Some SVG text elements are difficult to be painted using text operators in PDF so that's when we fall back to painting as shapes (prime example: text on a path). The tspan element in your case are pretty simple which could actually allow painting as text but the code is not that refined, yet. The regression from 0.20.5 can be explained that 0.20.5 didn't care much about tspan elements which could lead to poor output. 0.92 is more careful. On 12.06.2006 18:03:49 Raphael Parree wrote: Jeremias, Attached is the SVG. The PDF viewer I'm using is Adobe Acrobat (7.something). The quality used to be great with the FOP 0.20.5 bundle. I would assume it is a batik problem, if the batik-1.6-squiggle viewer would not show the rendered SVG in the appropriate quality. Cheers., -Original Message- From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 June 2006 09:59 To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: SVG Font quality The GIF helps showing the symptom but not the reason for the problem. Fonts can generally be rendered in two ways: text operations and vector graphics. In your case, I assume the text was rendered as vector graphics. If smooth line art is disabled (or not supported) in your PDF viewer, it could explain the poorer quality. It could help to see your SVG file. But also note that some text elements cannot be painted as text operations, yet. The choice which kind is used depends on the SVG content. On 06.06.2006 13:11:41 Raphael Parree wrote: Hi, I noticed the quality of my fonts in the SVG is noticeably less in 0.92b than in was with 0.20.5. Attached is an example (left is the PDF, right is batik-1.6-squiggle). I am embedding the fonts (Verdana) in my PDF. The SVG is included using defaults (with 72 as the resolution). Any clues? Jeremias Maerki - 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]
Re: SVG Font quality
It's not on my list, sorry. But you've got the source code. :-) On 13.06.2006 09:47:12 Raphael Parree wrote: Jeremias, You are right when zooming in the text looks better, and indeed the printing quality is good. However we also generate a PDF which is used as a presentation and is therefore not printed. Having both a presentation and a book was actually the reason to move to SVG as they scale well in printed form as on screen. :( Will the code be refined in the near future :) Tx., -Original Message- From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 June 2006 08:52 To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: SVG Font quality As I suspected. The SVG contains tspan elements which are rendered as shapes by 0.92beta to be on the safe side. What you're seeing is only the effect of painting vector graphics (as opposed to painting text). If you zoom in on the text the quality will get better. It doesn't look bad if you print it, does it? Some SVG text elements are difficult to be painted using text operators in PDF so that's when we fall back to painting as shapes (prime example: text on a path). The tspan element in your case are pretty simple which could actually allow painting as text but the code is not that refined, yet. The regression from 0.20.5 can be explained that 0.20.5 didn't care much about tspan elements which could lead to poor output. 0.92 is more careful. On 12.06.2006 18:03:49 Raphael Parree wrote: Jeremias, Attached is the SVG. The PDF viewer I'm using is Adobe Acrobat (7.something). The quality used to be great with the FOP 0.20.5 bundle. I would assume it is a batik problem, if the batik-1.6-squiggle viewer would not show the rendered SVG in the appropriate quality. Cheers., -Original Message- From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 June 2006 09:59 To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: SVG Font quality The GIF helps showing the symptom but not the reason for the problem. Fonts can generally be rendered in two ways: text operations and vector graphics. In your case, I assume the text was rendered as vector graphics. If smooth line art is disabled (or not supported) in your PDF viewer, it could explain the poorer quality. It could help to see your SVG file. But also note that some text elements cannot be painted as text operations, yet. The choice which kind is used depends on the SVG content. On 06.06.2006 13:11:41 Raphael Parree wrote: Hi, I noticed the quality of my fonts in the SVG is noticeably less in 0.92b than in was with 0.20.5. Attached is an example (left is the PDF, right is batik-1.6-squiggle). I am embedding the fonts (Verdana) in my PDF. The SVG is included using defaults (with 72 as the resolution). Any clues? Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SVG Font quality
Jeremias, Attached is the SVG. The PDF viewer I'm using is Adobe Acrobat (7.something). The quality used to be great with the FOP 0.20.5 bundle. I would assume it is a batik problem, if the batik-1.6-squiggle viewer would not show the rendered SVG in the appropriate quality. Cheers., -Original Message- From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 June 2006 09:59 To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: SVG Font quality The GIF helps showing the symptom but not the reason for the problem. Fonts can generally be rendered in two ways: text operations and vector graphics. In your case, I assume the text was rendered as vector graphics. If smooth line art is disabled (or not supported) in your PDF viewer, it could explain the poorer quality. It could help to see your SVG file. But also note that some text elements cannot be painted as text operations, yet. The choice which kind is used depends on the SVG content. On 06.06.2006 13:11:41 Raphael Parree wrote: Hi, I noticed the quality of my fonts in the SVG is noticeably less in 0.92b than in was with 0.20.5. Attached is an example (left is the PDF, right is batik-1.6-squiggle). I am embedding the fonts (Verdana) in my PDF. The SVG is included using defaults (with 72 as the resolution). Any clues? Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] table with generator types.svg Description: Binary data - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SVG Font quality
The GIF helps showing the symptom but not the reason for the problem. Fonts can generally be rendered in two ways: text operations and vector graphics. In your case, I assume the text was rendered as vector graphics. If smooth line art is disabled (or not supported) in your PDF viewer, it could explain the poorer quality. It could help to see your SVG file. But also note that some text elements cannot be painted as text operations, yet. The choice which kind is used depends on the SVG content. On 06.06.2006 13:11:41 Raphael Parree wrote: Hi, I noticed the quality of my fonts in the SVG is noticeably less in 0.92b than in was with 0.20.5. Attached is an example (left is the PDF, right is batik-1.6-squiggle). I am embedding the fonts (Verdana) in my PDF. The SVG is included using defaults (with 72 as the resolution). Any clues? Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
