Did you create a JIRA issue? Or file a bug with Adobe's bugbase.adobe.com? You should include a test source and test SWF that shows the differences.
-Alex On 10/21/13 3:14 PM, "Miguel Ferreira" <[email protected]> wrote: >I made also with otf sans source from Adobe. The result was the same, >when embedded is worse. Cff is compact font format from what i learn this >week i think that otf or ttf will be converted or better, compacted to >reduce size so by using the term embed as cff, That will embed that font >using a algorithm that will reduce the size of the embed font (maybe like >the woff - web font format)? > >@ Alex, there is someone there in the adobe that can give more info? I >also tried to go back for flash 10.2 as you suggest and then i read in a >blog but the result is the same. > >Miguel >Sent from my Windows Phone >________________________________ >From: Alex Harui<mailto:[email protected]> >Sent: ?21.?10.?2013 23:59 >To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Different Font result when using embed and not > >Device font rendering is not guaranteed across platforms. On Mac, for >example, the glyphs may be taller or wider than they are on Windows which >can affect the word-wrapping. Anti-aliasing is affected by >ControlPanel settings on Windows. If that's ok with you, you'll save on >SWF size and rendering time. > >If not, you need to choose embedded fonts. The algorithm in the more >recent players is not universally considered to be better, but again, a >test needs to be done with an embedded CFF font, not a font with glyphs >from TTF. > >-Alex > >From: Miguel Ferreira ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Date: Monday, October 21, 2013 8:31 AM >To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, >"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Subject: Different Font result when using embed and not > >In the attachment i have a project test. > >In this project test i am using 3 types of fonts: embed by swf (using the >fntswf utility), embed by css and not embed. > >And i have 2 different results > >Embed by swf and by CSS i have the same result and not embed gives >another result. > >Now start the true problem the better result is when the font is not >embed because when embed the fonts gets blurry not perfect! > >Some time ago i open a discussion with the title blurry fonts and on the >end no one can say a really motive why this happens... > >I was checking font types, special fonts to see if different fonts give >better results and so on. kerning off/on, etc, ... > >But where is the explanation when we use not embed the fonts presents the >same as before the lunch of SDK 4.5.1 (new text renderer) but when embed >the results are different with a worse presentation of the font? > >You can save a life? > >An explain this special situation that with the most recent version he >have worse presentation even when "they" say that we will have a better >one? > > >kind regards, > >Miguel Ferreira > > >
