I'm looking for a way to create an responsive image using SVG, where some sections maintain their aspect ratio when re-sized and others are distorted. This pencil, for example, could be resized so the two ends stay the same shape and only the body is stretched, like the image below:
I can do this in HTML5 using CSS3's border-image-slice, e.g.
border-image-source: url("cropped-pencil_clipart.svg");
border-image-slice: 25% 50% 25% 25% fill;
See this codepen for an example. However I can't think of a way to achieve it in a 100% external SVG file that I can use as an image or object. In effect, I want the outer and middle elements to have preserveAspectRatio="none" and the left and right elements to have ="... slice". I know this isn't possible in "conventional" SVG 1.1 and I don't want to use JavaScript or ForeignObject because these would limit the ways I can use the external file.
Are there any clever workarounds that could selectively preserve the aspect ratio for individual parts of an image? I can re-create the source elements as pure paths if that's necessary. I've tried using patterns and even custom markers but without success so far. Any suggestions would be welcome.
Related
I am working on a 2d fantasy map displayed in browser via WebGL. Here is what it looks like:
It is procedurally generated so you can move wherever you want but you can also zoom and unzoom without losing quality. I would like to add assets in some places, especially mountains when the altitude is high. I have those assets as vector images (.svg) so that you can still zoom in without losing quality. The thing is I have no idea how I could draw them on screen. I think I would need to convert those vectors to vertices of triangles but I am wondering if there is an automatic way to do it. I heard about something called SVGLoader but I think this is only for threejs and I am using webgl alone. What would you advise me to do?
edit: I just found https://github.com/MoeYc/svg-webgl-loader which looks interesting
<------This is an image I made in Photoshop...
It's basically a 160 x 160 box of white with a texture applied.
Below is what it looks like with "background-repeat" in the CSS. I was hoping it'd balance out. Is there a certain percentage the textile has to be at, or size of the original box? For it to be a perfect repeatable texture?
Im trying to do this myself, since I cant find grid patterns that fit the style.
Question: Whats the trick on making textures in Photoshop, that appear as balanced whole backgrounds when repeated?
If you look at the below image where it's in effect, on the very basic start of what Im working on, you can notice it doesnt quite fit together.
Any and all help greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
If you want that background for a webpage is better the use of repeating-linear-gradient. It is very easy of implement, less assets to download and it is supported by major browsers.
Look in the top left corner of your image. You'll note that the dark line starts at roughly 4-5 pixels from the top. Then look at the top right corner, and you'll note that the top line starts at just perhaps 2px from the top.
When this image is repeated twice side by side, there will be a disconnect. Just crop the image and shave off the two or three pixels until your lines connect. Repeat by cropping the bottom of the image for vertical alignment.
If you want to do this experimentally, increase the size of your canvas, and copy the pattern into a new 160x160 layer. Place them side by side, and then move the layers one pixel at a time so that they overlap. Where the overlap aligns is where you should crop the image.
I'm trying to highlight the countries of a svg map in a specific manner.
This is the result I want to achieve:
Before
After
Using the drop shadow technique provided here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/6094674, I was able to obtain a small relief effect, but I think this might not be the correct direction.
How should I approach this?
This gives you a shadow effect, which is fine. But if you want a true relief effect that works for all shapes (even fiddly ones with thin horizontal lines), then you'll need to composite multiple copies of the SourceGraphic, incrementally offset in y once for each pixel. Alternatively, you can use lighting primitives and some fancy compositing.
When using an feDisplacementMap svg filter, my smooth svg lines are getting all jagged. I could probably render it large and then shrink it down, but isn't SVG supposed to be able to anti-alias?
Okay, so I figured out the answer to my own question: the filterRes attribute: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/filters.html#FilterElementFilterResAttribute
In my testing, on Chrome, increasing the filterRes slows things down pretty dramatically.
SVG filters process inputs at the pixel level, not the vector level. As far as an SVG filter is concerned, it's been handed a big rectangle of RGBA pixels to work with. Results from a displacement map can look pixelated because a filter has no idea where the edges that have been displaced are - it's all just pixels as far as it is concerned. (The old semi-transparent pixels that used to be the anti-aliasing have been displaced as well.) However, sometimes you can add another filter or two to solve any problem that this creates. Creative ways to solve this problem:
Take the post-displacement graphic, blur it with a radius of a few pixels then blend the blur back into the original graphic.
Take the post-displacement graphic, do a luminance to alpha conversion, then use that alpha map with a diffuse lighting effect to add a fake anti-alias lighting effect.
Use a convolvematrix with edge detection values to extract edges from the graphic, blur that result and blend it back into the source graphic.
Depending on your graphic, you might be able to use an erode or dilate filter, but that tends to produce boxy highlights and might not work. And of course, you can always tweak your input in SVG (using stroke effects) to "pre-antialias" your source graphic so the result doesn't look so odd.
What is the best practice for including image dimensions in HTML code. I had a discussion with someone about which is faster for rendering, does it matter? I placed the image dimensions in the css attribute as the image dimensions would be easier to change in one place. Has anyone ever tested rendering speed on either?
If the image has to be rendered to a smaller rectangle than what is his original size, then the browser needs to do a scale operation and that requires time.
Providing the width and the height will not really help speed if not for layout purposes.