Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856239
--- Comment #122 from Mike FABIAN <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #120) > (In reply to comment #119) > > > > I cannot see much differences between the different settings for > > liberation sans. > > Due to hintlight it does not use bytecode to its full strength and use > subpixel rendering. I think that is the reason when we use above setting > > http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/liberation/arial-sans2-sans1-arimo-testing2- > fedora18-subpixel-rendering.png All renders bit similar to each other. > Since the outline is same in fonts for all fonts (not tested Arail though) Yes, here all 3 fonts (Arial, Liberation Sans 1, Liberation Sans 2) look very similar because the byte code hinting is not used. All very fuzzy. > > No matter which settings are used, it never renders as sharp > > as liberation 1.07 with autohint=false and hintstyle=hintfull. > > Agree with this, below is image for it. Just compare it with above. > > http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/liberation/arial-sans2-sans1-arimo-testing2- > fedora18.png And here Arial and Liberation Sans 1 are very sharp, because the byte code is used and these have high quality byte code. Liberation Sans 2 sticks out here as much bolder and fuzzier because it does not have such high quality byte code. The results for using the byte code of Liberation Sans 2 are similar to using the autohinter which makes it likely that some automatic tool was used to generate the byte code for Liberation Sans 2 and that tool achieves similar results as the autohinter of freetype. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ fonts-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts-bugs http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
