Hi there! Brand new (~2 days) ParaView user here, super impressed so far, amazing to have something so powerful and slick yet also open source. I know this has been discussed once or twice on here before, but on the openGL vector graphics output issues, I’m just wondering:
a) I don’t suppose there’s been any developments by any chance? Is a fix on the horizon or is that still rather over the horizon?
b) This is more of a general noob question, but I’m interested in what the general approach is for exporting high-quality figures in the meantime? I haven’t published research in any journals yet, but I kinda had the impression that vector graphics was extremely common, and almost a must where applicable. I’m guessing that’s not quite right; if it were, ParaView would presumably be pretty useless for ‘publication quality’ figures at the moment, which doesn’t seem to be the case! So for scientific research, is there a general/widely used alternative standard if vector graphics is not available, that people/journals are basically ok with? PNGs with the resolution cranked up to some high number maybe? What do you guys generally export as for the highest quality? Is actually exporting to (e.g.) PDF probably still the highest quality, despite the rasterization? Is there a way to control the rasterization in the (e.g.) PDF output to increase the resolution as one would for a bitmap format?