I notice in some of the PDF's I have done with SVG's the blurs are totally gone. Don't blur?
If you need a small file size when publishing an SVG file, try one of these options:Inky Hands wrote:I'm wondering what I can do to make sure my SVG file sizes are as small as possible.
Are the missing blurs clones of objects which are blurred (i.e. the original is blurred, not the clone)? Then it is a bug in Inkscape 0.47. Workaround: unlink the clones before saving as PDF.Inky Hands wrote:I notice in some of the PDF's I have done with SVG's the blurs are totally gone. Don't blur?
brynn wrote:
All that said, there's one more thing I could mention. After you finish your image, and before you Export Bitmap (or export whatever), do File menu > Vacuum Defs. This deletes a lot of info in the data file that you might have used while creating your image, changing your mind on colors, trying different gradients, etc., but that aren't used in the final image. But I'm not sure if Vacuum Defs reduces the file size......I assume it does, but I don't really know for sure.
Sorry, I wish I could be more help
I'm wondering what I can do to make sure my SVG file sizes are as small as possible.
Xav wrote:4) Keep an eye on gradients - they tend to propagate, especially if you copy and paste objects or move them between layers. I wish Inkscape had a better UI for resolving this - being able to order the gradients popup so that similar gradients are adjacent would help, as would a means to delete a gradient but automatically update all the relevant elements to use a different gradient. As it stands you need to re-map them by hand (or by search and replace in the SVG file itself, but I wouldn't recommend it).
microUgly wrote:Xav wrote:4) Keep an eye on gradients - they tend to propagate...
Inkscape does have an option so that multiple objects can share the same gradient definition, instead of duplicating gradients. You can find the option in Inkscape preferences. It's off by default because users didn't like that when you modify the gradient on one object, the change applies to all other objects also using that gradient.
Xav wrote:
5) Filters tend to pile up. Bear in mind that every time you blur an object it adds a filter. Sometimes it's better to attach an already existing filter to an object, rather than just blurring it in the Fill and Stroke dialogue, or picking it from the Filters menu again.
Lillie wrote:Xav wrote:5) Filters tend to pile up. Bear in mind that every time you blur an object it adds a filter. Sometimes it's better to attach an already existing filter to an object, rather than just blurring it in the Fill and Stroke dialogue, or picking it from the Filters menu again.
Could this be clarified please.
I blur a patch of colour by using the blur slider in the fill and stroke dialogue box.
Then I make a new patch of colour and blur that through the fill and stroke dialogue box.
What should I be doing?
Lillie wrote:Love the greys, by the way!
Xav wrote:You're not doing anything wrong as such - I do it that way all the time. But not everyone is aware that the blur slider in the Fill And Stroke dialogue is actually just a convenience for easily applying the most commonly used SVG filter, Gaussian Blur.
brynn wrote:Yes, that's my understanding.
Kjohrf wrote:Thanks. On one recent large project, I saw a huge list of filters (mostly numbered) in the effects
editor (someday I'll understand that editro), and vacuum defs didn't seem to shorten it.
Kjohrf wrote:Not sure how to "re-map" filters.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest