Commons:Graphics village pump/July 2010

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Large SVG text on Commons[edit]

From Commons:Help desk#Text really large

When I made a file in Inkscape, I put the text in a certain place, so it wouldn't overlap over items. When I uploaded the .svg to Commons, the text is larger then in the file I had on Commons. See File:Map of GDP per capita in the EU in 2007 (NUTS 3).svg, cmopared to the bitmap which was exported by Inkscape. The bitmap is how it should look. Jolly Janner (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The text in the rendered SVG is not actually "larger" in the sense of having an incorrect pointsize; it's wider (i.e. a different font with different metrics is being used). AnonMoos (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there a font, which will remain in the same width when rendered? Jolly Janner (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done DejaVu Sans installed. Jolly Janner (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rotating SVG[edit]

Good day, I have a question about animating SVG. I'd like to make an element (for example a path forming a star) rotate around its center. I tried various settings with animateMotion and animateTransform, but I only got it to move along a path instead of rotating around itself. Does anybody have an idea how to accomplish such a rotation around itself. --89.246.200.219 11:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You probably won't be able to upload the SVG to Commons if you do get it working, since SVG files with script code are generally rejected... AnonMoos (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, I intended to use elements and attributes which are a part of the svg standard. Would those be rejected as well? --89.246.200.219 21:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, animated SVG have not been implemented. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
SVG files containing SMIL animation can be uploaded, but will not display animation in Wikimedia (yet?). You may find what you need here. Globbet (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks that worked, but is there a fast way to redefine the starting point (?) of a path while keeping the path looking the same and the starting point not part of the star? Currently it rotates the star around one of it's spikey ends, that being the beginning of the star, but I want a rotation around it's center. --89.246.208.209 07:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Visible on firefox, not on IE...[edit]

Haifa-WM02 - National Maritime Museum.jpg

A friend of mine uploaded this image on Internet Explorer, and it haven't appear. When I've checked on Firefox, I saw the image, with all the trials. I've downloaded the image from Firefox and uploaded it on IE, only to see it doesn't appear, and neither all the other thumbnails. When he checked on Chrome, he saw the image. What's going on here..? --Yuval Y § Chat § 14:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's CMYK, not RGB--DieBuche (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
So? Does it matter? (I'm the one who uploaded this picture) How come you can see it in some browsers while in IE, you get an "x" as if there's no picture? Ldorfman (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The CMYK color space is really meant for printing, not for on-screen viewing, and its use in the JPEG image format is somewhat non-standard. Not all programs understand the extensions to the JPEG format required for correctly interpreting such images. Anyway, I downloaded the image in question and resaved it as a normal RGB (well, YCbCr, actually) image. Conveniently, this also improved the compression ratio quite a bit. Note that, depending on what software you're using, the colors in the two versions may look a bit different. This is somewhat unavoidable, as different programs display CMYK JPEGs differently. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Face-smile.svg --Yuval Y § Chat § 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I learned something and at the same time, the problem was solved. Great. Ldorfman (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


Latin small letter S with comma below[edit]

Problem with File:U+0219.svg. When I click on the image, it renders differently. --Bean49 (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The first-uploaded version of the file had absolutely no "viewBox" or width and height information, meaning that each renderer had to guess... AnonMoos (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Bean49 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


Autocad files[edit]

Bylbyl (talk · contributions · Number of edits) loaded quite some interesting .dwg files orginating from Autocad. Problems are that the drawings include components made by the equation editor, that conversion via wmf or eps formats to svg drops quite some information and that conversions like dwg->pdf->svg are quite time consuming. Any suggestion that yields better results than .png files that are not scalable ? --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

HDR highlight artefacts[edit]

Hi all. I'd like some help with HDR/tonemapping. I'm having the same problem, both with Photoshop and Photomatix, and I'm sure it's a well-known issue with a well-known answer. The highlighted zones in the resulting pictures present a kind of "cigarette burn" artefacts. You can see it in this screenshot on Flickr. How can I avoid that? What's the root cause? Thank you in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what "HDR" stands for; you might be more likely to get specific answers on a general photo-editing forum... AnonMoos (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably en:High dynamic range imaging, though as for the cause of the shown defect I have no idea. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Google Buzz and LiveJournal icons[edit]

There is an excellent Category:Social network icons, but there's a lack of w:Google Buzz and w:LiveJournal "pencil" (there are Userinfo and Community, though) icons in it, and such icons are highly useful for referring to social networks on Wikipedia. Is there a way to get such icons within that category? --ssr (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

imo most of these should be PD-simple: http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2010/03/24-free-exclusive-google-buzz-icons/ --DieBuche (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree they're too simple for copyright, however I've seen many DRs regarding logos on this level of originality. Trademarks of this caliber seem to trigger an instant response: "that can't be free!". DRs go either way depending on the closer. I can remember at least two logos (with multiple images) that got deleted which I thought were equally PD-ineligible: Adobe's PDF logo and Apple's QuickTime logo (a stylized Q). Furthermore, neither were the official logos. Rocket000 (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)