10-29-2022, 11:01 PM
The quality of the 2 methods can be simply explained :
Filter > Enhance > Antialias is an old post-processing filter to do "pseudo-antialiasing effect on hard-edged source material" (comment taken from the source code of the gegl filter).
It takes the input grid pixels and try to detect sharp edges and smooth them.
Stroking a path with anti aliasing is a different method : starting from a mathematical object (a vector), a 'vector to raster' algorithm is performed to represent the path on a grid of pixels.
The second method will always gives precise, clean and accurate result (thanks to mathematics and subpixels precision).
The first method will gives... hum... bad to almost good result, depending of the algorithm implied (yeah, the Scale3x edge-extrapolation used in gimp/gegl is clearly bad).
Filter > Enhance > Antialias is an old post-processing filter to do "pseudo-antialiasing effect on hard-edged source material" (comment taken from the source code of the gegl filter).
It takes the input grid pixels and try to detect sharp edges and smooth them.
Stroking a path with anti aliasing is a different method : starting from a mathematical object (a vector), a 'vector to raster' algorithm is performed to represent the path on a grid of pixels.
The second method will always gives precise, clean and accurate result (thanks to mathematics and subpixels precision).
The first method will gives... hum... bad to almost good result, depending of the algorithm implied (yeah, the Scale3x edge-extrapolation used in gimp/gegl is clearly bad).