I'm stumped. It looks like the code (and even the inputs to draw_text_image) are virtually identical, modulo the differences between Agg 2.3 and 2.4. Maybe the change is in Agg, and 2.4 is theoretically more correct? We can always experiment with different kernels and parameters until finding one that looks right. Cheers, Mike John Hunter wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Michael Droettboom <md...@st...> wrote: > >> They don't look non-antialiased to me (in your attachment or a file I >> generated locally). Remember, the rotation happens in raster (not vector) >> space, because that was the path of least resistance, but is a bit of a >> hack. >> >> The difference is that the trunk appears slightly darker than 0.91.x. (And >> 0.90.x, if I recall correctly, didn't support non-90 degree rotations of >> text at all). 0.91.x is using spline36 interpolation, trunk is using >> spline16. I *think* I changed it because I thought spline16 looked slightly >> cleaner (though technically less accurate), and of course is faster, but I'm >> not sure anymore -- SVN blame isn't helping me remember. It could have just >> been the example I was using at the time looked better. >> >> In any case, you should be able to change this line in >> _backend_agg.cpp:2197 >> >> filter.calculate(agg::image_filter_spline16()); >> >> to any of the interpolation kernels that Agg offers, and experiment until >> you find something suitable. >> > > Hmm, I tried setting the interpolation back to what it is on the > branch, but this doesn't explain it. If you run > > t = text(0.5, 0.5, 'hi mom', fontsize=20) > t.set_rotation(30); draw() > > and save the results from the trunk and the branch (using > agg::image_filter_spline36) on both, it appears (as you say) that the > font weight is darker for rotated text, but not for non-rotated text. > > JDH > -- Michael Droettboom Science Software Branch Operations and Engineering Division Space Telescope Science Institute Operated by AURA for NASA