Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] Xara's feature

["bulia byak" <buliabyak@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/19/07, Alex Bligh <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You can simulate many of these things using transparency including the
> bitmap in question

I really doubt you can efficiently approximate an arbitrary
curvilinear mesh, or even smooth a subdivision lattice like in that
Inkscape screenshot, with nothing but transparency.

> Re Guassian Blur, you can do this in the commercial version of Xtreme
> through live effects, which is a generalized filter mechanism that operates
> at given level in the rendered bitmap (perhaps you didn't know about that
> as it isn't in the open source version); you can do Gaussian Blur through a
> trivial plugin - i.e. you end up with a shaped object that acts (in this
> case) like a blurry lens.

Indeed. But, like I said, it's a question of general approach more
than lack/presence of specific features. In Inkscape, blur is a
fundamental feature of any object, right next to opacity. In Xara,
feathering is much more "fundamental" than blur if you judge by their
UI accessibility and the order they became available.

> By the way, if you can render and interpolate sufficiently fast, you
> shouldn't need the blur step. This can be important when some aspects of
> the (mesh) filled object (other than the outline itself) need a crisp edge.

Yes. But blurring allows you to do with much fewer subdivisions and
therefore a smaller file size. Although, I agree, blurring must be
adaptive so its radius never exceeds the sharpest color transition in
the mesh. If you're creating a crisp edge in the mesh, the blur radius
must automatically decrease and the number of subdivisions
correspondingly increase.

--
bulia byak
Inkscape. Draw Freely.
http://www.inkscape.org