RE: Performance and rendering quality degradation between Batik Squiggle 1.9 and 1.11
John-Val Rose <[email protected]> Sat, 17 Aug 2019 21:45:23 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.batik.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <MEAPR01MB49829D3317EA0AD7CC0D139FB5AE0@MEAPR01MB4982.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> |
--_000_MEAPR01MB49829D3317EA0AD7CC0D139FB5AE0MEAPR01MB4982ausp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Kirill, that=92s exactly what I was thinking, especially given that this= is a hi-res 4K monitor. I had Windows display settings to scale 150% but when I put it to 100% I fo= und that the issues went away (albeit that it=92s almost impossible to read= icon text etc.). So, is there anything that can be done about this at the Java level or the = Batik level? Maybe some command line arguments to handle the hi-DPI scalin= g? Graciously, John-Val ________________________________ From: Kirill Grouchnikov <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 7:39:16 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Performance and rendering quality degradation between Batik Sq= uiggle 1.9 and 1.11 Maybe it the high-DPI support added to Java in one of the newer releases, a= nd some kind of legacy fallback for apps that don't opt into something? On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 4:02 PM John-Val Rose <[email protected]> w= rote: OK, after a bit more digging, I stand corrected. There doesn=92t appear to be any of the aforementioned degradations in Bati= k itself; the issue is with which version of Java you run Squiggle with. I have found that all Java versions after JDK 8 show this slower scaling an= d poorer rendering quality. Even just the splash screen is very noticeably= more pixelated and SVGs themselves are more grainy. I=92ve attached some screenshots of both the splash screen and the tiger SV= G using Java 8 versus Java 10. Does anyone know why this is the way it is? Graciously, John-Val From: Helder Magalh=E3es<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, 17 August 2019 21:36 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]= e.org> Subject: Re: Performance and rendering quality degradation between Batik Sq= uiggle 1.9 and 1.11 Hi John, Could you elaborate a bit on the comparison? 1. Is it between the same Operating System? And same OS version? Please sta= te which one/ones are they. 2. Is it between the same JRE/JDK (Oracle/OpenJDK/etc.)? And same versions?= Please state which one/ones are they. Also, given it's a quality difference, one or two pairs of screenshots betw= een same content in the two environments would quite improve the explanatio= n. Regards, Helder Magalh=E3es A S=E1b, 17/08/2019, 06:54, John-Val Rose <[email protected]> escre= veu: Does anyone know why there appears to be a noticeable degradation in both r= endering/scaling performance and also in rendering quality of SVGs in Squig= gle between Batik 1.9 and 1.11? What are the major changes that may have resulted in this degradation? Graciously, John-Val --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]<mail= to:[email protected]> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<ma= ilto:[email protected]> --_000_MEAPR01MB49829D3317EA0AD7CC0D139FB5AE0MEAPR01MB4982ausp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows-1= 252"> </head> <body> <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --></style> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hi Kirill, that=92s exactly what I was thinking, esp= ecially given that this is a hi-res 4K monitor.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">I had Windows display settings to scale 150% but whe= n I put it to 100% I found that the issues went away (albeit that it=92s al= most impossible to read icon text etc.).</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">So, is there anything that can be done about this at= the Java level or the Batik level? Maybe some command line arguments= to handle the hi-DPI scaling?</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Graciously,</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">John-Val</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <hr style=3D"display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex=3D"-1"> <div id=3D"divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" st= yle=3D"font-size:11pt" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> Kirill Grouchnikov &l= t;[email protected]><br> <b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 18, 2019 7:39:16 AM<br> <b>To:</b> [email protected] <[email protected]= pache.org><br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: Performance and rendering quality degradation between B= atik Squiggle 1.9 and 1.11</font> <div> </div> </div> <div> <div dir=3D"ltr">Maybe it the high-DPI support added to Java in one of the = newer releases, and some kind of legacy fallback for apps that don't opt in= to something?</div> <br> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 4:02 PM John-= Val Rose <[email protected]> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-= left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <div lang=3D"EN-AU"> <div class=3D"gmail-m_-7294796290040195857WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">OK, after a bit more digging, I stand corrected.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">There doesn=92t appear to be any of the aforemention= ed degradations in Batik itself; the issue is with which version of Java yo= u run Squiggle with.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">I have found that all Java versions after JDK 8 show= this slower scaling and poorer rendering quality. Even just the spla= sh screen is very noticeably more pixelated and SVGs themselves are more gr= ainy.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">I=92ve attached some screenshots of both the splash = screen and the tiger SVG using Java 8 versus Java 10.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Does anyone know why this is the way it is?</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Graciously,</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">John-Val</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> <div style=3D"border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-= top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0cm 0cm"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"border:none;padding:0cm"><b>From: </b><a hr= ef=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">Helder Magalh=E3= es</a><br> <b>Sent: </b>Saturday, 17 August 2019 21:36<br> <b>To: </b><a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"= _blank">[email protected]</a><br> <b>Subject: </b>Re: Performance and rendering quality degradation between B= atik Squiggle 1.9 and 1.11</p> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hi John, <u></u><u></u></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Could you elaborate a bit on the comparison?<u></u><= u></u></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">1. Is it between the same Operating System? And same= OS version? Please state which one/ones are they.<u></u><u></u></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">2. Is it between the same JRE/JDK (Oracle/OpenJDK/et= c.)? And same versions? <span style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif">P= lease state which one/ones are they.</span><u></u><u></u></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Also, given it's a quality difference, one or two pa= irs of screenshots between same content in the two environments would quite= improve the explanation.<u></u><u></u></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br> Regards,<br> Helder Magalh=E3es<u></u><u></u></p> </div> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">A S=E1b, 17/08/2019, 06:54, John-Val Rose <john@r= osethorn.technology> escreveu:<u></u><u></u></p> </div> <blockquote style=3D"border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;b= order-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin-left:4= .8pt;margin-right:0cm"> <div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Does anyone know why there appears to be a noticeabl= e degradation in both rendering/scaling performance and also in rendering q= uality of SVGs in Squiggle between Batik 1.9 and 1.11?</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"> </p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">What are the major changes that may have resulted in= this degradation?</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"> </p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Graciously,</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"> </p> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-left:4.8pt">John-Val</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p> </div> </div> <br> ---------------------------------------------------------------------<br> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:batik-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphi= cs.apache.org" target=3D"_blank"> [email protected]</a><br> For additional commands, e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:batik-users-help@xmlgrap= hics.apache.org" target=3D"_blank"> [email protected]</a></blockquote> </div> </div> </body> </html> --_000_MEAPR01MB49829D3317EA0AD7CC0D139FB5AE0MEAPR01MB4982ausp_--