The upper stroke is with 4.4.3 beta 1 and the lower stroke is with 4.4.2.
Using Basic-5 Size with Diameter of 5 px and Gaussian Mask with Shape as Circle:
Differences at the left are due to manual pressure control uncertainty.
I don’t think this is a regression from 4.4.2
Whether or not it should happen is a different question.
The bug report linked to above has a proposal for improving the appearance.
The first 1px picture was drawn using the mouse.
Whether you use a mouse or a pen, the thin line will be broken.
I think it has nothing to do with pressure control.
So your saying you got pressure issues on your mouse too?
I find this very strange because there is working 1px brushes and you can draw with any brush that has size from 40 or 100px down to 1px width on low pressure if not smaller so small it becomes. Krita’s brush tip scaling is good.
Those blops are your tablet pressure being bad last time I tested this for another user with a similar problem.
I will do those brush combinations in a couple of minutes and double check.
Nah, that is a bug. (I used a mouse for everything here).
Take the Basic Flow brush and make sure to uncheck all dynamics (which means Flow and apparently Rotation). Open a new image 100x20 pixels. Put the size of the brush 0.8 px. You can use Line Tool since it’s easy, but using the Freehand Brush Tool in a similar way will show you the same issue.
Results:
perfectly horizontal line is totally invisible
a line that is not perfectly horizontal but the angle is not too big has parts that are completely opaque and parts that are completely transparent:
Then if you change the brush tip to Soft, the opaque parts will look a bit better but there will still be gaps and the horizontal line will still be invisible:
So I don’t see explanation in settings to why it wouldn’t work with 0.8px too. The Fade setting for Gaussian is around 0.89, which means “nearly full circle”, and it looks very similar to the Default one (the Soft one is a bit softer by default).
If I set up Soft to have similar Fade (nearly full circle) as others, the effect is again the same as in Gaussian:
For Rectangular shape, for the Gaussian the results are very similar, for Soft they are terrible (on this picture both lines were around the same length as every other line in the images above, from the edge to the edge):
Yes I have very similar results, these are mine on 4.4.2 with a tablet and I haven’t done on the beta yet even. But I guess it might not be better than this.
Turning off the Alias and lowering the spacing closer to zero helps the lines to appear more. It makes sense to a certain degree but not enough to make blops on lines.
Yes I noticed that too and I am a bit surprised with the result.
I tested more carefully how the dab rendering behaves (after all it was I who adapted them to the vectorized form).
In this case you are reaching the limit of the algorithm maths we use within the size you have to work with. The maths of soft and gaussian dab calculation do suffer from reduced resolution. In this case the calculation of the fade effect on such small sizes will frequently be on either the on or the off state, with no in-betweens. We cannot escape this, unless we have especial cases for dabs so small.
In other words, the brush tip (the dab) is so small, less than a pixel, that calculating the fade grandient in one pixel space is not enough to get smooth results. This is why it doesn’t work the same as the example with resizing the image: for dab calculation we use the pixel size of the dab, so even if the algorhitm can make the correct gradient, we simple do not have enough pixel resolution on the dab to show it.
Afair dab generation does not work at the sub-pixel level, but I may be wrong.
However the broken line does not make sense to me. Dab generation is independent from the Line algorithm and afaik that one works with sub-pixel values just fine.