Re: [ft] rendering changes 2.1.10 - 2.2.1
I apologize for the delay in testing CVS. I've finally gotten time to do a bit more testing. David Turner wrote: thanks for the clarification; it seems that you're saying that: A) light hinting now produces fuzzy glyphs B) medium hinting used to provide better output that previously medium hinting used to provide better output than it does now, yes. well, first of all, A) is purely intentional since we modified the algorithm to get results that are consistently closer to the original shapes than previously. The result is indeed fuzzier, though this is minimized when using proper LCD filtering. This is also more or less equivalent to what you get on Mac OS X I guess I don't care much about that. I think the results for light hinting under 2.1 were better, but I use medium hinting, via Gnome's Best Shapes setting (or, at least, I'd like to...) for B), I'm quite surprised because the algorithm for medium hinting in FreeType didn't really change between these two versions. Besides, I'm more interested in knowing what you think about the current CVS hinting changes Well, then, what else can I look at that might have changed? I've tried CVS, and in some cases it's closer to freetype 2.1's good results, but mostly not. In the attached screenshot, the terminals are rendered with FC5's libfreetype, FC6's freetype, and CVS freetype, top to bottom. Zoom in... The 'g' character is vertically squished in both freetype 2.2.1 and CVS. The vertical stem of the r is wide in both freetype 2.2.1 and CVS, making the character look fuzzy. The bold 'h' is also too wide. The bold 'l' was much more solid under 2.1. Let me know what else I can test... Hopefully I'll have more time to do it now. ___ Freetype mailing list Freetype@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
Re: [ft] rendering changes 2.1.10 - 2.2.1
Hello Gordon, thanks for the clarification; it seems that you're saying that: A) light hinting now produces fuzzy glyphs B) medium hinting used to provide better output that previously well, first of all, A) is purely intentional since we modified the algorithm to get results that are consistently closer to the original shapes than previously. The result is indeed fuzzier, though this is minimized when using proper LCD filtering. This is also more or less equivalent to what you get on Mac OS X for B), I'm quite surprised because the algorithm for medium hinting in FreeType didn't really change between these two versions. Besides, I'm more interested in knowing what you think about the current CVS hinting changes Hope this helps, - David Turner - The FreeType Project (www.freetype.org) On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:33:27 -0800, Gordon Messmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: David Turner wrote: There are indeed differences in the auto-hinter between various FreeType releases, since we try to enhance it incrementally (and this will be true for the next release, by the way, which should treat serif fonts much better, try the CVS if you want). I'll give that a shot soon. I fail to see exactly what the problem is; you're not even providing screenshots nor telling what is wrong, only that things are different. OK, I didn't describe the problem, as I perceive it, until the end. where Medium hinting used to provide very pleasing results, it now seems to squish characters vertically, and they're fuzzy I've included a set of screenshot selections showing the Gnome terminal using Courier and Luxi Mono. In each shot, the upper terminal is using freetype 2.2.1, and the lower one is using 2.1.10. In the best contrast shots, both appear identical. In Courier-12-BestShapes, the fonts in the upper terminal look fuzzy. Magnify the word Monospace in the image. You can see clearly in the 'M', 'n' and 'p' characters in the lower terminal have good, solid vertical stems. They're one pixel wide and relatively solid in color. In the upper terminal, those characters have two-pixel wide stems that fade into the black background. This difference makes them appear very fuzzy. All of the characters in the upper terminal appear fuzzy, regardless of whether or not they have vertical lines. The old rendering model did a better job, here, with medium hinting. In LuxiMono-10-BestShapes, the fonts in the upper terminal appear fuzzy, again. Vertical stems tend to be more faded in color, where they used to be bright. The 'g' character also looks vertically squished where it used to have a well rounded shape. I can provide more shots, with different fonts, if you'd like. In general, though, all of the fonts that I look at appear to look better with medium hinting in 2.1.10. Is there an easier way to test various hinting levels? I don't see options within ftview to do anything other than turn hinting on or off... Thanks for looking at this. ___ Freetype mailing list Freetype@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
Re: [ft] rendering changes 2.1.10 - 2.2.1
There are indeed differences in the auto-hinter between various FreeType releases, since we try to enhance it incrementally (and this will be true for the next release, by the way, which should treat serif fonts much better, try the CVS if you want). I fail to see exactly what the problem is; you're not even providing screenshots nor telling what is wrong, only that things are different. Could you be about more specific about what you see as a bug here ? It helps when you stick it to the usual trio of: - what you did to show the bug - what you were expecting - what you got instead Thanks in advance, - David Turner - The FreeType Project (www.freetype.org) On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:44:18 -0800, Gordon Messmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I noticed that there was a conversation earlier (before I was on the list) about FC6 users filing bugs against freetype which might be cairo or fontconfig bugs, and I'm wondering if this is or isn't one of those. Font rendering on FC6 differs from FC5. I'm testing using a copy of libfreetype.so.6 that I copied from an FC5 system into ~/freetype. I'm using LD_LIBRARY_PATH to load one copy of a Gnome application, and then loading a separate copy of the application with the usual library path. When I select None or Full hinting in the font configuration panel, the two applications look identical. However, if I select Slight or Medium the two applications may look different. Luxi Sans looks the same at medium hinting, but Courier and Luxi Mono differ at both Slight and Medium. I can't find any font that is rendered differently by the LD_LIBRARY_PATH hack when None or Full is selected. Since the only difference between the two applications is the version of the freetype library (and anything statically linked?), it seems like there changes are probably therein. The question is, what else can I do to find the problem? I don't like the shapes of characters with Full hinting (never did), as it seems to squish characters horizontally. However, where Medium hinting used to provide very pleasing results, it now seems to squish characters vertically, and they're fuzzy. ___ Freetype mailing list Freetype@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype ___ Freetype mailing list Freetype@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
[ft] rendering changes 2.1.10 - 2.2.1
I noticed that there was a conversation earlier (before I was on the list) about FC6 users filing bugs against freetype which might be cairo or fontconfig bugs, and I'm wondering if this is or isn't one of those. Font rendering on FC6 differs from FC5. I'm testing using a copy of libfreetype.so.6 that I copied from an FC5 system into ~/freetype. I'm using LD_LIBRARY_PATH to load one copy of a Gnome application, and then loading a separate copy of the application with the usual library path. When I select None or Full hinting in the font configuration panel, the two applications look identical. However, if I select Slight or Medium the two applications may look different. Luxi Sans looks the same at medium hinting, but Courier and Luxi Mono differ at both Slight and Medium. I can't find any font that is rendered differently by the LD_LIBRARY_PATH hack when None or Full is selected. Since the only difference between the two applications is the version of the freetype library (and anything statically linked?), it seems like there changes are probably therein. The question is, what else can I do to find the problem? I don't like the shapes of characters with Full hinting (never did), as it seems to squish characters horizontally. However, where Medium hinting used to provide very pleasing results, it now seems to squish characters vertically, and they're fuzzy. ___ Freetype mailing list Freetype@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
