Gradients on .SVGs always circular

Previous topic - Next topic

DavidBrennan

Every time I import a .SVG with a gradient into Scribus, the gradients are always circular in shape (each of its points are equidistant from the center).  I cannot change them in Scribus.

Here is an illustration of the problem, and a .SVG is attached, although if you try this with ANY .SVG you'll see it occurs.



Is this a Bug, or is there a problem with my settings?

[attachment deleted by admin]

GarryP

Hello David.

I'd say that this was a bug.

While Scribus will import most SVGs without any problem it seems to have trouble with some effects. (You probably got a message saying that the "SVG contained some unsupported features" and clicked past it.) Gradients are one problems area, another is transparencies.

A fix in your particular instance would be to:
* separate your background and foreground items from the gradients;
* save them separately;
* import them into Scribus in different layers;
* add a new layer in between for your gradients;
* create the gradients again using the Shape tool and a Free Radial Gradient Fill.

It's not pretty and a bit of a mess about but it should work. I don't think there's a simpler way - off the top of my head - unfortunately.

DavidBrennan

Thank you for the info and tip, GarryP.

It's funny about the Scribus warning that an SVG "might contain unsupported features".  It says that every single time, so I never even think twice about that, any longer!

Your suggested work-around seems to be the best choice.  However, the problem there is that controlling Scribus's "Free Radial" Gradients is a huuuuge pain in the butt.  Do you know if there is a simple blur option in Scribus, as an alternate work-around?

GarryP

You're welcome.

I know where you're coming from with the "unsupported features" thing. I wish it would say which features it's found that are unsupported. That way we'd know whether importing was going to be a major issue or not. (Even if it just listed "stuff" it doesn't understand it would give us a clue.) But, as it is, like you've said, you've just got to hope for the best.

Unfortunately - as of 1.4.3 - there is no "blur" feature in Scribus, and what transparency effects there are affect the whole object in a uniform way so they're probably of no use to you.

One other thing you could try is to export your vector drawing as an EPS and insert that into an image frame. It might work, or it might not.

DavidBrennan

Hmm.  I'll try that EPS work-around.  That will be funny if .EPS files prove more compatible than .SVGs! 

I will report back this evening on the results.

DavidBrennan

I created two blurred objects in Inkscape, and exported both of them as .EPS files. 

The first blurred object had Inkscape's "Blur" as its Fill Material.  The second object simply had an oval gradient as its Fill Material.

They both imported into Scribus.  However, they did not import with the full shapes, only parts of the shapes.  Furthermore, their vector outlines could not be edited.  So converting them to .EPS rather than .SVG presents different glitches, apparently.


GarryP

Shame that didn't work, but it was a long shot.

One other thing I can suggest would be to export the gradient ovals as high-res bitmaps but that might not be any good if you're getting your work professionally printed.

On the other hand, if you're only using Scribus to get a PDF - in this specific case - you could try the PDF export function of Inkscape instead (and you might be able to import that into Scribus if necessary). I've read that it can produce odd effects with transparencies on some readers but that might not be a problem for you.

DavidBrennan

It looks like using a bitmap image is my only choice.  I can't export the .PDF in Inkscape because it's an entire pamphlet, twelve pages or so. 

My hope is that proper SVG gradients are allowed in future versions of Scribus.  I'm not a programmer, so I'm dependent upon the volunteers who do it, but if that could be worked on, that'd be great.  Allowing for proper gradients on SVGs seems like a pretty fundamental, significant concern.