Comment 5 for bug 779018

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 3:57 AM, rejon <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Hachmann <email address hidden>
> wrote:
> > Public bug reported:
> >
> > Of every uploaded vector graphic, the blurry or fuzzy parts are not
> > shown in preview, making many pictures unrecognizable or ugly in
> > preview. When rendered as png by OCAL website, they look all right.
>
> So which is it? They look alright or they look blurry? You mean the
> thumbnails or the bigger versions of the image?
>
Many thumbnails are missing the complete picture, sometimes, it seems,
without any cause or pattern. We know that the thumbnail converter struggles
with some gradients and some blurs, and text, but there are a number of
clipart that don't have either of these. Perhaps the converter also
struggles with circles that are still circles and not object paths? (or
rounded edge boxes?) Does the converter only work with paths?

Case in point:
http://www.openclipart.org/detail/116881 my mashed version of his
http://www.openclipart.org/detail/0910a28-coche-rojo-by-isladelossue%C3%91os1011his
version
All I did was ungroup, and convert everything to paths and the thumbnail
generates fine.

> Man of the images are made with inkscape, and our renderer is rsvg
> soooo, there is some discrepancy in output.
>
Is this the same as the autoscaler?

>
> > Can
> > you maybe exchange the thumbs for ones really representing the pictures?
> > (I know that means that every thumbnail would have to be re-rendered,
> > but it would certainly make a difference)
>
> Sure, if we can fix the rendering issue, then they will be updated
> automatically because of the way caching is done on the site.
>
If the converter-thumbnail generator is the same as the autoscaler then we
can find out what is going on. If they are different tools, wouldn't it make
sense to just use the autoscaler?

(These are the ideas that Hachmann has said, which I support. They are
helpful ideas.)