W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2010

Re: New anti aliasing techniques for 2d rendering

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:59:38 -0700
Message-Id: <5E5B8A41-0F75-45CA-A4B1-B25E254D2A86@jumis.com>
To: Juan Vuletich <juan@jvuletich.org>
Cc: "steve@fenestra.com" <steve@fenestra.com>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
Haven't been able to find details on your site about the method you're  
using, nor adequate test images.

Perhaps making some more information available would help us connect  
you with the resources you're looking for.


-Chatles



On Jun 6, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Juan Vuletich <juan@jvuletich.org> wrote:

> Steve Schafer wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:10:37 -0300, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am developing a novel way to do anti aliased 2d graphics that  
>>> breaks away from pixel coverage and super sampling, while being  
>>> simpler and providing higher quality. Please take a look at  
>>> http:www.jvuletich.org , especially at the samples.
>>>
>>> Comments welcome.
>>>
>>
>> You write on your web page: "My quest for higher quality resulted  
>> in the
>> idea of applying the Sampling theory for all rendering. This allows  
>> for
>> mathematically proved alias free rendering. But it seems I am the  
>> first
>> one to do this!"
>>
>> See, for example: Foley et al. (1990) _Computer Graphics: Priniciples
>> and Practice_, 2d ed, pp. 617-647.
>>
>
> Sure. I don't claim to invent Sampling theory. I just claim I'm the  
> first one to actually implement it for 2d vector graphics. I changed  
> the web page to read " But it seems I am the first one to actually  
> implement this for 2d vector graphics!" If there is any application  
> that can render those examples with quality on par with mine, I'd  
> like to know.
>
>> A good rule of thumb in any mathematical, scientific or engineering
>> endeavor: If you believe you're the first to think of something, or  
>> the
>> first to do something in a novel way, you just haven't looked hard
>> enough.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>
> That would mean that no progress is ever possible. I don't agree.
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
Received on Sunday, 6 June 2010 21:27:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:45 GMT