Antialias effect intensity

[Hackerman]

Please help! 

I need to import an image from an EPS file without antialiasing so I can achieve better editing results. I want to apply antialiasing afterwards. The thing is that the antialias filter is just too weak (it adds only 1 pixel near the borders!?) and I need a much stronger antialiasing effect (at least 3 pixels). How? I don't think there's an option to choose the intensity of the antialiasing filter. Please don't suggest the following :

1)Any types of blur 
2)Scaling the image back and forth with cubic interpolation. 

We both know they don't have the same effect. I tried Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator (useless pieces of software) only to find out they don't offer antialiasing at all! I tried everything. And I made a lot of research but no one seemed to have those same complaints. Is 1 pixel aa enough for you?

[Ofnuts]

Anti-aliasing usually applies to a 1-pixel wide border. If done properly there is no-reason to do anything bigger/wider.

But IMHO you shouldn't remove anti-aliasing. If you do your editing correctly the anti-aliasing pixels will be processed properly. The first step is usually to remove the background using Color-to-alpha to work with a transparent layer background.

   

[Hackerman]

I am talking about a huge 10000×7913 artwork poster image with no antialiasing at all. It doesn't have any transparency. As I need to apply gaussian blur in selections using the fuzzy tool, having aa before would put me in a lot of effort (having to zoom closely to make sure the correct pixels are in the selection). And 1 pixel is not enough for it too look good in 100% scale. If I import it with maximum aa (more than 1 pixel) it looks great. But it is the fuzzy tool that works much better without aa. Because of its size and nature (eps) more aa doesn't make its quality worse. It looks really bad with 1 px aa.

[Ofnuts]

What are you doing with your selections? Painting? Between the alpha-lock (to change the color already painted pixels, that can be partially transparent) and the Behind mode in paint tools (that will "fill the transparency" of partially opaque pixels, you can keep original AA whoch iwll be better than AA added after the fact.

[Hackerman]

So you're in my words that there is no way of applying a good aa effect after I import it? That was the initial question.

[rich2005]

I spent a bit of time on this yesterday but with usual options ruled out and no info on the sort of image, not easy to even comment.

Quote:I need to import an image from an EPS file without antialiasing so I can achieve better editing results.

and later

Quote:I am talking about a huge 10000×7913 artwork poster image with no antialiasing at all

Please clarify. Is that a large (10000x7913 px) raster image in a eps wrapper or is it a vector image?

Do not rule out a gaussian blur. Various ways to get a edge selection and a constrained blur. All depends on the image.

[Hackerman]

It's a vector image that I want to import and export as raster.... I should have clarified. Here is it for anyone that wants to experiment : cutit.org/imageeps. It will display it as pdf. But if you open it with gimp in 100% zoom, with 7913×10000 dimensions and no aa you will see it looks bad. If you apply the aa filter afterwards it doesn't affect it at all (very slight change). And it needs to bee perfect in 100% scale. It is perfect if you import it with maximum aa. But because it's a vector image converted to raster, the fuzzy tool would work much better if it has no aa before using it.

[rich2005]

Nice poster, sorry no real solution.

This a screenshot of one corner at 1600x scale. https://i.imgur.com/9V0Fpgu.jpg

Top one is via inkscape to show the path and the anti-aliasing.
Middle is importing the eps with no anti-aliasing. The ramping, the different density anti-aliasing is gone, flattened never to return and the shape lost.
Bottom is some edge work with a gaussian blur, but never going to be wonderful.

However, it does also depend on intent. As imported at 7913x10000 pix, the print resolution is 480 pixels-per-inch (ppi) and the print size is 42x53 cm

To me, it looks like the intent might be printing 100x79cm @ 254 ppi (100 pixels-per-cm, often used by photo laser printers)

Might look ok without anti-aliasing, viewing distance for an art poster might be 2+ metres and 254 ppi is well in excess of requirement.

[Hackerman]

So Inkscape offers a better aa solution? I will try it then. What I want to do in the first place is to create the desired image. Printing comes second. And I could scale it down anytime I want. So I'll check out Inkscape and let you know about the result. Also, another question. I haven't seen any obvious difference between linear and no interpolation at all. Could you provide an image that points out the difference?

Thanks for the help

[rich2005]

I would not use Inkscape for the purpose you intend

Quote:....As I need to apply gaussian blur in selections using the fuzzy tool

I do think you can even do that

Quote:..I haven't seen any obvious difference between linear and no interpolation at all..

You need to do something like take a small pixel-graphic type image and scale up using the two methods.