Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

.jef file displays badly on machine #92

Open
stephanschulz opened this issue Aug 15, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

.jef file displays badly on machine #92

stephanschulz opened this issue Aug 15, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@stephanschulz
Copy link

Here are two photos of what the same image looks like on my Janome 230E preview display.
The first still shows some remainder of the last stitching process. It uses a .jef generated by P5.
I then opened the .jef in Premier2+ and exported it right away. This exported file looks fine on the preview display and stitches fine.
???
2020-08-14 21 25 07
2020-08-14 21 27 27

I am also including both .jef files

Archive.zip

@golanlevin
Copy link
Member

@LingDong- here's a fun one if you feel like doing binary diffs :)

@tatarize
Copy link

Binary difference checking isn't useful since they are they are pretty much entirely different. Previewing the data in embroidepy however and exporting to PNG. It uses the latest codebase (EmbroideryIO is originally python and then backported to java) uses the python version and shows the designs as follows:

Default:
defaultjef

Exported:
exportedjef

This may relate to #104 since it's not actually a faulty preview, it's a faulty file. I'm unsure if this uses the latest version of embroiderIO which had a fix to Jef in Oct of 2019. The only other update was circa March 2021 to make Jef stop commands work through a process of alternating the dummy color, and correcting a potential issues when the colors sent to the library differed from the color changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants