Hi cga ;), On Feb 24 at 07:23:44, cga wrote:> >Look at the text within the render area in firefox, not the menus. Both are > >using Bitstream Vera Sans. > > > Why not look at the menus? Isn''t fontconfig/xft supposed to make font > rendering global for the entire system?Because the menus are using different fonts, for the sake of comparison. But yes, look it ;), because their fonts are rendered in a ''too blurry'' way too.> other unblemished. But there''s definitely a difference between the two. > No idea if it''s configurable (it should) or a result of using different > versions of the rendering software.That''s what i want to find out... How to make the second system look as the first one.> allow to use other fonts..)? You should be able to zoom in/out a bit > using Ctrl+-/+.. See if it makes any difference. Also xmag is your > friend when examining such problems.Yes, i''ve been doing that, but still are different :(. And yes, xmag is a great tool for this kind of things ;)> >was some difference, but the fonts still looked worse in the smaller > >screen. > > > aren''t you contradicting what you said above about preferring the LCD?Sorry, a typo. I meant ''better''.> Unless you absolutely refuse to use Microsoft material you may want to > give their fonts a try.Hmmmm, good idea, i''ll give it a try to see the difference. I''ve always said that the only innovative thing Microsoft had done were TrueType fonts...> IMHO they look incomparaby better than anything else I''ve seen on a PC > screen.Thanks for the advice ;) cheers, -- David G?mez Jabber ID: davidge@jabber.org
David G?mez wrote:>Hi all ;), > >I have two systems with different screens. First one is a notebook with a >1024x768 LCD and the second one a box with a 1280x1024 TFT. > >The problem is that fonts in both systems look different. I like how >the fonts in the LCD are rendered, but they don''t look ''right'' in the >TFT screen. They''re too ''fuzzy''. Both are antialiased. > >I got two screenshots to show my problem, better to zoom in the fonts >to see the difference. > >http://www.pleyades.net/david/snapshot1024.png >http://www.pleyades.net/david/snapshot1280.png > >Look at the text within the render area in firefox, not the menus. Both are >using Bitstream Vera Sans. >Why not look at the menus? Isn''t fontconfig/xft supposed to make font rendering global for the entire system? What I see in both menus *and* content areas is that vertical & horizontal lines (as opposed to diagonals and curves) are rendered w/o any fuzziness in ss#1 (the smaller one). On the other hand in ss#2, *everything* is fuzzy/blurred. I think that''s what gives ss#1 a much cleaner aspect in general than ss#2. A good example of this is the capital ''F'' of File in both menus. Obviously it''s a matter of taste whether you prefer that everything should be blurred or if you prefer some letters blurred (the ones w/ diagonal and curvaceous lines) and other unblemished. But there''s definitely a difference between the two. No idea if it''s configurable (it should) or a result of using different versions of the rendering software. Another thing I have noticed on my laptop is that some scalable fonts are better viewed at certain sizes than others. Do your two Firefoxes have exactly the same specis for fonts (same sizes, same minimal size, allow to use other fonts..)? You should be able to zoom in/out a bit using Ctrl+-/+.. See if it makes any difference. Also xmag is your friend when examining such problems.>The file local.conf is the same for both configurations, with sub-pixel >rendering enabled. I''ve tried to enable other options, like autohint. There >was some difference, but the fonts still looked worse in the smaller screen. > >aren''t you contradicting what you said above about preferring the LCD?>I don''t know the origin of this difference in the font rendering. Could it be >the different screen resolutions, or it''s something related to my >configuration?. > >1024x768 notebook is using Xfree86 4.3.0, freetype 2.1.7 (is debian unstable) >1280x1024 TFT box is using Xorg 6.8.1, freetype 2.1.9 (fc3 packages) > > >Thanks in advance, > > >Unless you absolutely refuse to use Microsoft material you may want to give their fonts a try. IMHO they look incomparaby better than anything else I''ve seen on a PC screen.
Hi John ;), On Feb 24 at 07:16:16, John Thacker wrote:> He said that the TFT box was using Fedora, correct? I''m certain > that the bytecode interpreter is disabled on Fedora due to concerns > about Apple''s patent and patent claims on it.Yes, but i thought that it was also disabled in the freetype package for Debian..., that''s why i didn''t think about that.> rebuild the RPM to turn on the bytecode interpreter if you want; > set a variable at the top of the specfile from 1 to 0 as instructed. > See here, for example: > > http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/freetype/freetype.spec?rev=1.17&view=markupThanks for the links ;). I''ll rebuild the rpm with the bytecode interpreted enabled, just to see what results i get in the rendering. -- David G?mez Jabber ID: davidge@jabber.org
David G?mez wrote: [...]>Well, i finally downloaded and recompiled Freetype (2.1.7, because 2.1.8 >and 2.1.9 failed at the linking step) with the Bytecode interpreted enabled, >and certainly makes a difference ;). >It would be great if you could upload comparable screenshots so we could see the ''before and after''..>The auto hinter in the library is >visibly not as good as the bytecode interpreter. > >Thanks to all that helped me with this problem and pointed me to the right >solution :). I had spent several days trying to fix this problem with no >results, and would have lost several more if it wasn''t for your help ;) >not really time lost.. I''m still pretty clueless about fonts but the little that I know I have learned over the last couple of months.. I must have spent over a month gettting fonts to work to my liking. :-(
One difference that immediately jumps out is that in your 1024 snapshot rgba rendering is on, but in the 1280 snap it is off. The stems in the 1280 snap are all more than one pixel wide, unlike the 1024 snap (except for the bold fonts, of course). Is the link between the box and the TFT digital or analogue? Are the two boxen running the same os/dist? A DVI vs VGA link to the TFT is probably only remotely at issue for Xft quality. But a different freetype install may be. Each os and dist does their own thing with the bytecode interpreter in freetype. It may be the case that bytecode interpreter is not compiled in on the TFT box. It appears to be used on the notebook. I''d start by turning on RGBA on the TFT box, and then confirming whether the interpreter is enabled. -JimC -- James H. Cloos, Jr. <cloos@jhcloos.com>
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 06:58:17PM -0500, James Cloos wrote:> It may be the case that bytecode interpreter is not compiled > in on the TFT box. It appears to be used on the notebook. > > I''d start by turning on RGBA on the TFT box, and then confirming > whether the interpreter is enabled.He said that the TFT box was using Fedora, correct? I''m certain that the bytecode interpreter is disabled on Fedora due to concerns about Apple''s patent and patent claims on it. It''s pretty easy to rebuild the RPM to turn on the bytecode interpreter if you want; set a variable at the top of the specfile from 1 to 0 as instructed. See here, for example: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/freetype/freetype.spec?rev=1.17&view=markup And here for a discussion of the patent issues: http://www.freetype.org/patents.html Note that disabling is the default in FreeType2. John Thacker -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20050224/9d271fb3/attachment.pgp
Hi all ;), On Feb 25 at 11:28:12, David G?mez wrote:> Hi John ;), > > On Feb 24 at 07:16:16, John Thacker wrote: > > He said that the TFT box was using Fedora, correct? I''m certain > > that the bytecode interpreter is disabled on Fedora due to concerns > > about Apple''s patent and patent claims on it. > > Yes, but i thought that it was also disabled in the freetype package > for Debian..., that''s why i didn''t think about that.Well, i finally downloaded and recompiled Freetype (2.1.7, because 2.1.8 and 2.1.9 failed at the linking step) with the Bytecode interpreted enabled, and certainly makes a difference ;). The auto hinter in the library is visibly not as good as the bytecode interpreter. Thanks to all that helped me with this problem and pointed me to the right solution :). I had spent several days trying to fix this problem with no results, and would have lost several more if it wasn''t for your help ;) cheers, -- David G?mez Jabber ID: davidge@jabber.org
Hi cga ;), On Feb 25 at 05:31:34, cga wrote:> >Well, i finally downloaded and recompiled Freetype (2.1.7, because 2.1.8 > >and 2.1.9 failed at the linking step) with the Bytecode interpreted > >enabled, and certainly makes a difference ;). > > > It would be great if you could upload comparable screenshots so we could > see the ''before and after''..Yeah, sure ;). Get it at http://pleyades.net/david/afterscreenshot1280.png> not really time lost.. I''m still pretty clueless about fonts but the > little that I know I have learned over the last couple of months.. > > I must have spent over a month gettting fonts to work to my liking. :-(What i''ve learned from all this is that the bytecode interpreter is the choice if you want the best font rendering. Thanks that i live in a place where software patents have no effect ;) (at least nowadays, hope that the future law for software patents in Europe won''t get approved...) cheers, -- David G?mez Jabber ID: davidge@jabber.org
>>>>> "David" == David G?mez <david@pleyades.net> writes:David> Yeah, sure ;). Get it at David> http://pleyades.net/david/afterscreenshot1280.png To get identical output as on your laptop, you still need: <match target="font"> <edit name="rgba" mode="assign"><const>rgb</const></edit> </match> I find it makes enough difference to bother. David> What i''ve learned from all this is that the bytecode David> interpreter is the choice if you want the best font David> rendering. Iff the font it a ttf (or ttf-style otf) and was engineered with high quality intructions. There are a lot of fonts out there that are autohinted -- or not hinted at all -- where freetype''s autohinter out-performs whatever software the font designer user to autohint. But for those fonts you can add <match> clauses in fonts.conf to force the autohinter instead of the interpreter. -JimC -- James H. Cloos, Jr. <cloos@jhcloos.com>
Hi all ;), I have two systems with different screens. First one is a notebook with a 1024x768 LCD and the second one a box with a 1280x1024 TFT. The problem is that fonts in both systems look different. I like how the fonts in the LCD are rendered, but they don''t look ''right'' in the TFT screen. They''re too ''fuzzy''. Both are antialiased. I got two screenshots to show my problem, better to zoom in the fonts to see the difference. http://www.pleyades.net/david/snapshot1024.png http://www.pleyades.net/david/snapshot1280.png Look at the text within the render area in firefox, not the menus. Both are using Bitstream Vera Sans. The file local.conf is the same for both configurations, with sub-pixel rendering enabled. I''ve tried to enable other options, like autohint. There was some difference, but the fonts still looked worse in the smaller screen. I don''t know the origin of this difference in the font rendering. Could it be the different screen resolutions, or it''s something related to my configuration?. 1024x768 notebook is using Xfree86 4.3.0, freetype 2.1.7 (is debian unstable) 1280x1024 TFT box is using Xorg 6.8.1, freetype 2.1.9 (fc3 packages) Thanks in advance, -- David G?mez Jabber ID: davidge@jabber.org