(In reply to Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) from comment #10) > One would think that [this](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/426022c17bb140b7e2017c127c2fe2a47481dd18/layout/base/nsLayoutUtils.cpp#6353-6357) would make it a crisp path? You would think, yeah! It looks like that was part of a fix for `<img>` being pixelated under some circumstances, in bug 1003505, which was a regression from bug 764299. If I test a build from that range, e.g. Nightly 2013-10-23 or 2014-06-20, then my PDF-printout of testcase 2 looks "consistently fuzzy" -- the top part (img) and bottom (css background) are **both fuzzy**. :) But builds just-before or just-after that range look pretty much the same as they do now -- the top is crisp, the bottom is fuzzy.
Bug 1771103 Comment 13 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) from comment #10) > One would think that [this](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/426022c17bb140b7e2017c127c2fe2a47481dd18/layout/base/nsLayoutUtils.cpp#6353-6357) would make it a crisp path? You would think, yeah! It looks like that was part of a fix for `<img>` being pixelated under some circumstances, in bug 1003505, which was a regression from bug 764299. If I test a build from inside that range (the range when bug 1003505 was a problem), e.g. Nightly 2013-10-23 or 2014-06-20, then my PDF-printout of testcase 2 looks "consistently fuzzy" -- the top part (img) and bottom (css background) are **both fuzzy**. :) But builds just-before or just-after that range look pretty much the same as they do now -- the top is crisp, the bottom is fuzzy.