Quick note to admin, not sure, above zip not linked for inspection. (IDK, maybe you guys preview before publishing, sorry for double post if that's the case)

Oh you can! You can just hit the back button, then copy the message, if you've spent too long responding, and then relog in..

They number of colors, yes, pretty sure I dialed it in correctly as I try numbers like 8, 16, 24, 32, 64, 128, 256 initially, then try again within that range, observing, ultimately a guess in the end. But on this one, I think it came out within 2 extra. (There were two miniscule paths/polys, probably a fraction of one percent of the page whose color was gray. All the rest (excluding black) were shades of gold.) Also, not sure if you noticed, there were two layers (or stacks?) I failed to 'difference'. (just remembered) ((last night turned into another 2am night))

The only difference between having Stacked Scans checked or not, is that the results are either stacked on top of each other, or they're not. The results are the same either way - just stacked, or not.

Would vacuuming definitions halve those double sized 'difference' paths?

No. As I said before, Simplify is what you need to reduce the number of nodes. But also as I said before, too much simplification will distort the path.

Fyi, makes bad juju to post the same problem in more than one forum! In the end, it seems like you solved your own problems, and never needed any help to begin with.

Yes, I try, I try. I couldn't log in here as I didn't know my old user name from 9 years ago, couldn't find a 'forgot username' prompt, ended up making a new email to get a new username. In between time I started the other post because of this. (Not to mention I had to use either their forum or another place to post images/files) Yes, I kept thinking about it long and hard enough to come up with a solution. But I couldn't have done it without you guys, sometimes it takes some hints and suggestions to get back into the zone.

Yes, the results are the same. I suppose if one were to flatten the stacks, if the paths overlapped, it would have to blend the two colors in that area. (or cancel each other out) (not sure) Sounds impossible. Not seeing any flattening tools. Might be helpful to export the difference paths, retrace those using the fill technique to make normal weight, and import back. (If one were looking to make the file size negligible) (Another good job prospect for a custom script)

Yes, simplify nodes. Could make the difference between a 10 minute and a 10 hour project.

Sorry, hadn't read the bad juju clause when registering. You can delete the links. It's OK. (Another good job prospect for a 'Trace Visible Using Difference' how to video, which would only take up link space to YT) Or simply delete this post. I don't mind. I'm just a guest. (Just thought others could benefit) Besides, I thought a second opinion was good juju. No?

Thank you very much! Brother Jaso

brynn wrote:The only difference between having Stacked Scans checked or not, is that the results are either stacked on top of each other, or they're not. The results are the same either way - just stacked, or not.

Actually, the traces are handled quite differently:

Bitmaps with transparency on the left, traced with three scans.

Good example!

Here are my findings..

Umm. 43 kb's too large. How did you put those images here? I click on Img above and I show two img's with the cursor in between. (??) I went to attachments (not sure if that is the way to call up an image to the post) and 43 kb's is too large.

Thank you very much! Brother Jaso


OK. Figured it out, cut size of picture in half, jpg, not really doing the justice I wanted in describing how the 256 scan version is way more accurate than the 33 scan on black version. If I start off using the Gimp image (bottom left) on no layer, unstacked, InkScape adds it's own white layer, making the outline a lighter transition to gold. On the stacked versions, (using Gimp on black version bottom right) InkScape makes lighter and lighter stacks all the way down (inverse shadows I call them). So, unstacked makes an easy white stack to select and delete, but stacked makes each stack a full page color. And since I want to see the maximum quality InkScape can issue, the more scans (and hence, more colors) really tunes in the image(s). No problems here. Everything nice and crisp how I like it.

Is there a way to tell InkScape to use a black layer when tracing?

I'll try to upload a zipped folder of the above image so you can see the difference better..

BrotherJaso wrote: How did you put those images here?

The upper image is an SVG hotlinked from dropbox.
The lower image is a screenshot attached/uploaded to the post.

BrotherJaso wrote:Is there a way to tell InkScape to use a black layer when tracing?

If the original bitmap has transparency, I'd try adding a black layer under the original using GIMP, then trace the new bitmap in Inkscape and delete the black scan.

tylerdurden wrote:Actually, the traces are handled quite differently:

I'm shocked!

Ok, I found this in the manual (possibly out of date, but I don't think so, for this particular issue).

Stack scans. The Stack scans option determines how the paths are defined. With the Stack scans box unchecked, the paths produced do not overlap; with the box checked, each path includes the area of the paths above it in z-order. The advantage of unstacked paths is that they are easier to divide into sub-paths, while the advantage of stacked paths is that there are no “holes” between the coverage of the paths. The differences between the two situations is depicted below.

So basically, having them unstacked would be doing the differencing for you. So you wouldn't have to go through that process (although I still don't understand why you did it).

But I certainly would suggest better wording for that option! Because it's way more than just stacking or unstacking! Even the tool tip doesn't really explain what it does. The only clue is "gaps" which is pretty cryptic.

BrotherJaso wrote:Sorry, hadn't read the bad juju clause when registering. You can delete the links.

The links aren't a problem. It's not in the forum rules. It's just a general "best practice" when asking for help in any kind of support forum. Although some forums are really quite irritable about it, and would have some kind of consequences if they find out.

Oh, my bad! It is in the forum rules! viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1836 (See the 4th bullet down in the first section) And it's also in the guide for using forums in general: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=745 (See #3.1)

I could explain why, if you don't understand. (Some people really don't understand, and I don't mind explaining.)

Interesting. Interesting. Good to know. Good to know.

Forum rules.

Never read them. But I considered myself an ace when approaching these kinds of places. Never would I have thought that would be a stipulation. I suggest having it removed. It's a form of compartmentalization. Who owns this forum? No biggie. I guess just take down the post and log me out. Or leave it. Not sure. Whatever you think is best.

Thank you very much! Brother Jaso

Yes, blankets of layers(stacks on z) each succeeding to brightest color on the bottom. (yellow in above) Very impressive. Sorry, trying to get the hang of putting images/svgs up. That explains it alright. Maybe some InkScape devs may offer a trace to black on a beta nightly? I can script the rest. (Reorganizing difference paths, but flattening those z's not sure.. Probably isn't necessary anyway.) J out

Just thought... No need for new build, take the inverse of the image and trace that. OK. Trying now. J out again.

RESOLVED. Invert color prior to trace, document properties to black background, trace, filters/color/invert/hue, lightness, and transparency.

Thank you very much! Brother Jaso

BrotherJaso wrote:Interesting. Interesting. Good to know. Good to know.

Forum rules.

Never read them. But I considered myself an ace when approaching these kinds of places. Never would I have thought that would be a stipulation. I suggest having it removed. It's a form of compartmentalization. Who owns this forum? No biggie. I guess just take down the post and log me out. Or leave it. Not sure. Whatever you think is best.

Oh, don't get me wrong! I didn't mean my message to sound like scolding or reprimanding. I'm just offering info, in the hopes of fostering good internet citizens (of whomever happens to read this).

The internet is not free (unless you want to put up with crappy hosting). Someone does own this forum, and pays for hosting (by himself, with no help from any of us, for 10 years next month, for which we should all be grateful) (this is likely thousands of dollars by now!) and if there's a rule or 2 to follow, why not? But it's not about ownership or compartmentalizing, or blocking off certain info from certain people. As I said, it's a general "best practice" for using forums across the internet. (Other best practices are covered in the topic I linked above.)

As I mentioned, some forums are very strict about cross posting in different forums. I saw a forum once where they said they would delete the message of anyone found to have posted the same problem in another forum, and then ban them! I call that extreme! We do nothing like that here.

Anyway, the reasons for discouraging cross posting are a few. One reason is that it can become confusing for the poor user. Different people are telling her different things, and she doesn't know which one is right. Then she has to ask the other forum about what she learned in the other forum, then those forum members have to explain to her what she's talking about, even though it may have nothing to do with what this forum thinks the problem is. They think maybe she's done her own research and is confused, but they really have no idea where she got that info. So now, both the user and the forum members are confused.

Then what happens if she applies the fix that one forum told her to do, and it doesn't work. So she tries what the other forum suggested, but it won't work because what she did by the other forum's suggestion totally messed things up for what this forum suggested. But this forum has no idea what she did, so their suggestion is now completely off base but they don't know it. And then the poor user is more lost than ever. You can see how things can get very crazy very fast, right?!

But I think the main problem is that forum members are here in their spare time (we do have lives offline - work, family, hobbies, etc.) and are volunteers. When someone posts the same message in another forum, it takes us twice as much time to answer your question. We have to explain our own suggestion, and then when we find out you've gotten another suggestion, maybe we have to explain it too. And maybe explain the pros and cons and why which one is better or worse than the other, even though we would have mentioned the other way in the first place, if we thought it was better. Or maybe we have to spend a half hour studying the file, trying to figure out why our fix didn't work, because we had no idea what she did that the other forum suggested.

With Inkscape (as well as many other types of programs), there is often more than one way to accomplish something. And which way you use, and which way the person who answers your message uses and suggest for you, is likely nothing more than personal preference. But more importantly, it's likely to be different from what the people in the other forum suggest. I have never seen a case of cross posting where the message thread didn't get huge!

And it's not necessarily spending twice as much time answering your questions. Some forum members might think - why did I waste my time answering if they got the answer somewhere else? And it's not just us. The people in the other forum could be thinking or feeling the same way. And if there is a 3rd forum involved..... Even though most forums don't have such a strict policy as the one that considers it a banning offense, the forum members who spent so much time trying to help might remember your name, and might not be inclined to help the next time you post.

I'm not saying that's how I feel, or how anyone who posted here feels. Or course I have no idea how anyone else feels. I'm just trying to explain why not cross posting is a best practice across the web. To me, it's just the polite way to get help from a free forum.

Again, I'm not reprimanding. Just explaining why. Even though we're supposed to read the forum rules before we register, probably very few people actually do. And it's not fair to reprimand someone for something they didn't know about, whether they should have known or not. So it's all just for your and everyone's info