Draw manually a black intermediate shape and blur it, There's Blur slider in the fill coloring dialog. This can be used if the exact form isn't critical and a linear gradient isn't a must.
Inkscape's extension Generate from Path > Interpolate can make automatically several intermediate versions and by interpolating the style one gets also intermediate ...
I think this would be easier to draw manually with the Pen tool in Illustrator, or the Bézier tool in Inkscape. At least that way you can get a nice smooth curve. There's nothing automated that will beat the human eye, and a little skill.
All you need is a some practice. If you have a lot of these to do, then you'll get better each time.
Seriously: No automatic tracing can extract the one and only right path under your dot chain. That's because the tracing should know the mathematical criteria for the right path. You may know it but I can only make a guess. Especially ambiquous for automatic methods are the crossings. There's zero information of should it be X or ><. Another difficulty is ...
In Inkscape I would try this:
make a bitmap image out of your data points, and use https://github.com/fablabnbg/inkscape-centerline-trace - it may be necessary to blur the bitmap a bit in Gimp or another raster graphics editor, and then sharpen it again, for best results.
Edit: I blurred, sharpened, enlarged contrast, then turned it to black and white in ...
That's a tricky one. I'd know more how to align objects on a path in After Effect then Illustrator. The only thing I can think of would be to create a pattern. Window > Pattern Options.
I'd then select the pathern I'd wish to make, such as a red circle and select Make Pattern in the top right hamburger menu:
You could play with the settings on the Pattern ...
You can't edit bitmaps in Inkscape. Inkscape is a vector image editor.
You could redraw the graphic in Inkscape however. It's not too complicated and shouldn't take too long.
All it consists of is two copies of the hypercube, one with a red stroke, one with a blue stroke on a layer above, with the blending mode set to "Darken". The blue layer is then ...
The quick way would be to use gimp to make the background of the image transparent, then it won't matter what colour your background has.
Add an alpha channel to the image:
select the colour to alpha option:
choose the background colour, white in your case
Image with transparent background:
For working with a vector image I suggest a different workflow. Instead of trying to fill the gaps, I suggest to make a copy of the whole shape, delete all the interior nodes (e.g. by using the "edit path" menu or Ctrl+Shift+K to break apart and then Ctrl++ to union [thanks at @Moini for this tip]) so that only the other edge remains. This shape can now be ...
If you have overlapping closed paths, the results will be different for Union versus Combine. If not overlapping, then there's no difference. There can also be differences with the behaviour of Combine itself, depending on the direction of paths.
The path->difference operation could help:
to use this the yellow A needs to be a path rather than a letter. If this is not the case, convert the letter into a path. Same for the stripes. If they are strokes rather than paths, convert them.
select both the yellow letter and a white bar (red in my picture) and choose the path->difference menue
The easiest and quickest way without any add on's or additional setup.
"Clipping Mask Scaling - Trick"
● Import image
● Go to sidebar to 'Create Rectangle and Square' and draw over (as accurately as possible) the object in photo which you know (for example)
the width of.
● Select both Photo & Rectangle, go to Object > Clip > Set.
● Once clipped, ...
This can be done, but note that Division can only be used with one path at a time. But that's easy to fix. Also there's no need to convert the shapes to paths beforehand.
draw a square (rectangle)
draw the four rectangles over it (or copy and paste one, three times)
select the four rectangles and do Path > Combine
select all of the rectangles, now Path > ...
I was able to accomplish the task, but my methodology isn't likely to be the most efficient. Using the "snap to midpoint" feature, I drew a line across the midpoint of each edge, then selected the square and line. Using path, division worked and created two equal squares. Repeating this created two more on the other segment remaining.
You ask for four ...
The complextity of the elements somehow seems to exceed limits of PostScript or PDF. If you save your SVG as Optimized SVG, you can reduce that complexity quite a bit.
While Inkscape still has the same problems with the optimized version, I used another app, Sketch to open it and export the PDF, and it seems to work fine.
I must admit analyzing SVGs properly, especially this one, is a little too complex for non-programmers. But do a workaround:
Make a bitmap copy of the problematic shape. It's in the Edit menu. Remove or close the original in the Objects panel.
You do not lose anything because it already seems to be rasterized, only wrapped in a complex way in the file ...
Remove the fill, if there's one, let the black outline stroke stay. Make a spare copy of your shape, you may need it later.
Select the shape. Goto Path > Stroke to Path. That transforms the outline stroke to filled area.
Use the shape to clip the image. The outline acts as a clipping mask, because it's now a filled area.
Not asked Scrap the ...
Three years later and I've had the same problem. I downloaded a vector sheet filled with multiple objects to be used. I only wanted one object off a sheet of ten. So I wanted to cut and paste that object into another svg file I was working on. Here's what I discovered and how I did it.
The original svg file with multiple objects on it was a single layer. ...
To have the same units displayed in the XML as in the font size dropdown in Inkscape 0.92.4, set the Text units to 'mm' (if you're using the default document template, not a custom one). See screenshot in Billy Kerr's post for where to find it.
If you have the necessary skills, I would consider redrawing the graphic manually. It's not exactly complicated, and the results will be better than any automatic tracing. You only really need to draw one of the corner sections, the rest are made by flipping and reflecting. Afterwards the strokes are outlined, then joined using Union, and finally a stroke ...
I checked some Arabic ornaments and frame images with Google. They had generally sharp corners and smooth curves. This obviously is an enlargened version of a pixelated shape which originally has also contained a few corners and smooth curves.
Unfortunately no automate can decide which corners should be smoothed and which should stay, the only possibility ...
Vector Magic recognizes each pixel as a face/surface/line and creates a vector nearly exactly like the image provided. I had hoped for some smoothing to take effect, but no such luck.
The same thing happens with Inkscape's Trace Bitmap feature.
This leaves manual adjustment or manual editing. One approach would be to use the node edit tool and remove all ...
One good idea is to sink the curve behind the other shape, simply drag it downwards in the objects panel. It's tried in top right:
That probably was like a bad joke, if you are not going to cover your curve, you only want a gap with certain size and placement,
In the bottom it's made with Object > Mask. The mask has a hole. It's created by subtracting the ...