Hi,>> I''ve had a plan to convert the bitmap X fonts to otf format, whichwould eliminate PCF/BDF code from the X server...> > Forgive the naive question. > > Regarding fixed fonts, would conversion be possible without loss ofquality?> > I am thinking of GNU/Unifont (used by grub''s menu for instance), whichis available both in PCF & TTF form. As it hapens, the TTF version as rendered on an xterm is practically illegible. In order to turn a bitmap font into a TTF/OTF form that renders identically for the same pixel size, the various options that people have come up with are (1) embedded bitmaps (2) outlines & bytecode hinting (3) converting every pixel into a square outline I think that GNU Unifont uses option #3. Depending on the renderer''s configuration and the actual pixel size used, this might give unsatisfying results (although I have little experience with this particular font). Also: If you used Unifont as server-side X font, the renderer would be running on the X server; if you used an Xft font (''-fa'' argument to xterm), the renderer would be running on the client. Even if the PCF renderer should someday be dropped from your X server, you could still use the client-side renderer. So there''s no need to panic :-) I personally guarantee that I will fork whatever is necessary to keep my beloved X11 bitmap fonts, at least as long as I still use a < 200 dpi display :-) Raimund -- Worringer Str 31 Duesseldorf 40211 Germany +49-179-2981632 icq 16845346
> In order to turn a bitmap font into a TTF/OTF form that renders > identically for the same pixel size, the various options that people > have come up with are > > (1) embedded bitmapsOr rather, bitmap-only fonts in SFNT format. This is the only sensible solution IMHO for PCF and BDF. Werner
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 02:16:35PM EDT, Raimund Steger wrote:> Hi, > > >> I''ve had a plan to convert the bitmap X fonts to otf format, which > would eliminate PCF/BDF code from the X server... > > > > Forgive the naive question. > > > > Regarding fixed fonts, would conversion be possible without loss of > quality? > > > > I am thinking of GNU/Unifont (used by grub''s menu for instance), > > which > is available both in PCF & TTF form. As it hapens, the TTF version as > rendered on an xterm is practically illegible. > > In order to turn a bitmap font into a TTF/OTF form that renders > identically for the same pixel size, the various options that people > have come up with are > > (1) embedded bitmaps (2) outlines & bytecode hinting (3) converting > every pixel into a square outline > > I think that GNU Unifont uses option #3. Depending on the renderer''s > configuration and the actual pixel size used, this might give > unsatisfying results (although I have little experience with this > particular font). > > Also: If you used Unifont as server-side X font, the renderer would be > running on the X server; if you used an Xft font (''-fa'' argument to > xterm), the renderer would be running on the client. Even if the PCF > renderer should someday be dropped from your X server, you could still > use the client-side renderer. > > So there''s no need to panic :-) I personally guarantee that I will > fork whatever is necessary to keep my beloved X11 bitmap fonts, at > least as long as I still use a < 200 dpi display :-)OT.. but where do you get a 200 dpi display..? My personal dream btw would be a 17-19" 300 dpi... at least for the time being ;-) [..]> > In order to turn a bitmap font into a TTF/OTF form that renders > > identically for the same pixel size, the various options that people > > have come up with are> > (1) embedded bitmaps> Or rather, bitmap-only fonts in SFNT format. This is the only > sensible solution IMHO for PCF and BDF.Thanks to both. Actually, we''re not looking at ?panic? in my case, but rather irrepressible fury. Some of us could kill for a nice bitmap font :-) Nice to know I''m not alone..! CJ -- Have a nice day!
On 04/20/12 03:06 PM, Chris Jones wrote:> OT.. but where do you get a 200 dpi display..? My personal dream btw > would be a 17-19" 300 dpi... at least for the time being ;-)https://www.apple.com/ipad/ Though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density has a number of other devices, including some notebooks and traditional LCD monitors in the range as well, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at oracle.com Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc
Alan Coopersmith wrote:> On 04/20/12 03:06 PM, Chris Jones wrote: >> OT.. but where do you get a 200 dpi display..? My personal dream btw >> would be a 17-19" 300 dpi... at least for the time being ;-) > > https://www.apple.com/ipad/ > > Though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density has > a number of other devices, including some notebooks and traditional LCD > monitors in the range as well, such as > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors >Ah, interesting. Well I wasn''t *actually* thinking I could get one very soon. It''s just that if I do someday, that will mark the time when it''s becoming sort of unreasonable to stick with 75dpi bitmap fonts, or I''d need a magnifying glass. Needn''t be a bad thing either, because my current cell phone display already tells me that glyphs can look razor sharp at that kind of resolution, way beyond what current desktops achieve even with all their anti-aliasing trickery. But that''s a thing of the future. Raimund
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 06:13:10PM EDT, Alan Coopersmith wrote:> On 04/20/12 03:06 PM, Chris Jones wrote:> > OT.. but where do you get a 200 dpi display..? My personal dream btw > > would be a 17-19" 300 dpi... at least for the time being ;-)> https://www.apple.com/ipad/> Though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density > has a number of other devices, including some notebooks and > traditional LCD monitors in the range as well, such as> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitorsYeah.. or smartphones... maybe I should check my coffee maker & my dishwasher..? I meant for _computers_ :-) Just kiddin'' and thanks much for the links.. the issue being I guess that not many GPUs can handle 200+ ppi''s on screens bigger than 10".. Sorry for the OT, but it''s been many years I wished something like the lower end of print quality, say 300 ppi.. were available for computer displays. Instead you go to Best Buy and you get to pay lots more for a heavier bigger hungrier appliance.. with a lower ppi..! Go figure. CJ -- HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Chris Jones <cjns1989 at gmail.com> wrote:> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 06:13:10PM EDT, Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> On 04/20/12 03:06 PM, Chris Jones wrote: > >> > OT.. but where do you get a 200 dpi display..? My personal dream btw >> > would be a 17-19" 300 dpi... at least for the time being ;-) > >> https://www.apple.com/ipad/ > >> Though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density >> has a number of other devices, including some notebooks and >> traditional LCD monitors in the range as well, such as > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors > > Yeah.. or smartphones... maybe I should check my coffee maker & my > dishwasher..? > > I meant for _computers_ :-) > > Just kiddin'' and thanks much for the links.. the issue being I guess > that not many GPUs can handle 200+ ppi''s on screens bigger than 10"..Modern GPUs could in principle do that just fine... That have had enough memory to accommodate huge frame buffers for a long time.> Sorry for the OT, but it''s been many years I wished something like the > lower end of print quality, say 300 ppi.. were available for computer > displays. Instead you go to Best Buy and you get to pay lots more for > a heavier bigger hungrier appliance.. with a lower ppi..! Go figure.Actually, for a bit of history, Windows Longhorn/Vista was supposed to jumpstart a revolution in screen resolution. Microsoft reworked the whole graphic stack (including font rendering) to make it a lot more resolution independent. They were aiming for desktop monitors with at least 3200x2000 pixels. See this 2004 story on Slashdot (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/04/07/30/238200/longhorns-windows-graphics-foundation-examined). It never happened, and it was for a number of reasons: 1- Many, many Windows applications assume about 72 ppi and render unscaled bitmaps to the screen. All those 16x16 icons? Totally unusable at 300ppi. A lot of these apps also render text at a fixed pixel size that is way too small for that kind of resolution. On Windows 7, you still find a lot of legacy apps rendering horrible bitmap fonts in random places. There is a lot of apps rendering more or less directly, and it''s hard for Windows to catch these and rescale on-the-fly. Microsoft didn''t really have a strategy to address resolution-independence for legacy apps, from what I could tell. 2- Vista was very late, and it brought a lot of uncertainty. This meant that all the work rewriting apps never happened. 3- The hardware seemed to have been behind the curve as well. My guess is that the software situation made hardware manufacturers uninterested in pushing the resolution up. Manufacturing was difficult anyway, but you would have had trouble selling the resulting screens (at least in volumes sufficient to justify the huge investment needed across the whole panel industry). That''s what happens when people loose faith in a Moore''s law (i.e. a self-fulfilling prophecy of constant improvement of technology that only works if all market participants continuously believe in it and invest accordingly). At the same time, game consoles started dominating game development, and it didn''t really make sense to render games at a much higher resolution than what they were increasingly being developed for (720p or even less for most console games, still to this day). It''s interesting to compare that episode with the current software situation on Android/iOS/Metro. The HTML rendering model has taken the lead with builtin resolution-independence (automatic reflow, relative font-sizes, ex/em units), to some extent, and that''s the model now adopted by Android (after a bit of a false start) and Metro (I think?). Apple sticks with a fixed-resolution model for iOS, using a simple re-scaling factor to work with a small number of screen sizes. Desktop monitors have had the exact same resolution for about 5 years now, while display technology has improved a lot: I bet the situation would have been very different if Windows had supported resolution-independence from the beginning.
Eric Rannaud wrote:> [...] > Actually, for a bit of history, Windows Longhorn/Vista was supposed to > jumpstart a revolution in screen resolution. Microsoft reworked the > whole graphic stack (including font rendering) to make it a lot more > resolution independent. They were aiming for desktop monitors with at > least 3200x2000 pixels. See this 2004 story on Slashdot > (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/04/07/30/238200/longhorns-windows-graphics-foundation-examined). > > It never happened, and it was for a number of reasons: > 1- Many, many Windows applications assume about 72 ppi and render > unscaled bitmaps to the screen. All those 16x16 icons? TotallyYeah, and in places where it''s totally unnecessary as well, like all those camera/CD burner/media player apps that wanted to make their window look like some kind of appliance :-)> It''s interesting to compare that episode with the current software > situation on Android/iOS/Metro. The HTML rendering model has taken theYes I think the only way for Microsoft to get consumers onto high-dpi displays will be Metro, and the Classic desktop running scaled on top of Hyper-V or whatever. For corporate desktops/Citrix/NX etc. I don''t see it in the nearer future though. Raimund