<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED DUPLICATE - Skia engine leaves scaled raster images far blurrier than does hardware rendering"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134352#c9">Comment # 9</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED DUPLICATE - Skia engine leaves scaled raster images far blurrier than does hardware rendering"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134352">bug 134352</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:mwtjunkmail@gmail.com" title="mwtjunkmail@gmail.com">mwtjunkmail@gmail.com</a>
</span></b>
<pre>Not sure if it's appropriate to call it fixed necessarily, but it's definitely
an improvement: <a href="https://i.imgur.com/43brkmR.png">https://i.imgur.com/43brkmR.png</a>
Top image is hardware rendering, middle image is Skia without forced software
rendering, and bottom is Skia with forced software rendering.
All three had anti-aliasing applied.
Skia with forced software rending is still appreciably blurred, just not nearly
to the extent that it was in the first round of testing:
<a href="https://i.imgur.com/0NP4IJ8.png">https://i.imgur.com/0NP4IJ8.png</a>
The question now is more of a case of what LO developers consider a close
enough approximation for their own level of tolerance.
It'd be disappointing for this output to be the end-all and be-all of the
result, because even with this daily build that I downloaded from your link,
Skia visibly remains less than on par with hardware rendering.
Is there necessarily supposed to be a degradation in quality between the three
methods (hardware/Skia/Skia forced software rendering) and that's meant to be a
known and acceptable trade-off?</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>