Yes, the emboldening strengths are exactly how much thicker stems
ought to become. This is compatible with their definition in
FT_Bitmap_Embolden.
That's what I figured back then. What tripped me was how "strong" stems
appeared with the correct version. Stem contrast approximately matches
the CFF engine, but they look ugly. Frankly, I'm not pleased with the
results, especially below 10 or 11ppem, where glyphs degenerate into a
hazy mess: http://postimg.org/image/8lrwf7x5d. A far cry from the beauty
the CFF engine puts out...
I dialed the y-parameters back to 200, 135, 135, 0 and set the lower
size limit to 9ppem (= pretend sizes below 9ppem are 9ppem to prevent
uglyness). That actually made glyphs look okay:
- http://postimg.org/image/ak3o45zzp/
- http://postimg.org/gallery/2jvrjb9f4/f0346f31/ (emboldening and no
emboldening)
I don't know. What does the CFF engine do that FT_Outline_Embolden
doesn't? Higher precision?
Or is this good enough?
_______________________________________________
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
