And when there are more than 2 lines intersecting, it gets to be a little bit like a knot at the intersections. But you can see that the intersections aren't handled faithfully. On the right is the result of the centerline trace. One red path along the inner edge of the original black line, and one red path along the outer edges. The double-red lines shows what happens when you use Trace Bitmap. On the left is part of the original image. Ok, attached is a screenshot (click on it to make it bigger). It all comes back to what you need this work for, in the end. Or maybe I'll just quickly do it, to show you what I mean. You can really only see what I mean by trying it. Personally, I don't like the results of a centerline trace, because it makes things a little bit strange in the area where 2 lines intersect. It will automatically trace it, and only have a single line as a result. And that's what phiscribe suggested is the Centerline Trace extension. It sounds like you need a single path, rather than inner and outer paths. However, that will trace 2 lines - the inner edge of the lines that you see, and the outer edge.Īs you've written your message, that you want the lines to be thinner, Trace Bitmap would not seem to be the best choice. The other way is to use Path menu > Trace Bitmap, which will automatically trace it. One way is to use the Pen tool, and trace over it. If you need to use Inkscape, you'll have to convert that raster image to vector before you can make the lines thinner. It depends on what you want to do with the image, as to whether it would be better for you to use Inkscape, or a raster editor (such as GIMP). Next, I guess it might be a good idea to ask why you want to make the lines thinner. If you don't have paths, you can't have a stroke, which is what you would make thinner or wider. It's a raster image, and doesn't have any paths. GIMP is a raster graphics editor, while Inkscape is a vector graphics editor.ĭid you open the file you attached (59.jpg) in Inkscape? And that's where you can't change the width of the line? If so, that's because JPG is a raster format. This doesn't tell the whole story, but it gives a general idea. So first, I should explain about the difference between raster graphics and vector graphics. If you gave us a link to the svg file you are working with it might be more telling.Īahh ok. If that works, you wind up with paths that have no inherent thickness and you can assign as you wish. An extension you can download and add might work. What would be better is a path, (open path) and not a shape, (closed path.)ĭoing a centerline trace might give you what you are wishing for. That said, I bet your scan and resulting trace bitmap produced a shape, that can't have its thickness less than what it is. It will never be less thick than its shape, unless you change the shape. It is very different than how thick it is based on how thick you make the outline or stroke. This object is a solid shape, with how thick it is defined by its shape, (a closed path.) This type of thickness is a result of it's shape. If you give it a thickness, say 2 points, then do Stroke to path, it becomes an object. If you draw a line with Inkscape, it is a path, likely an open path.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |