On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 03:43:13PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've been wondering why Xpdf's display looks so bad compared to > mozilla's display of web pages.
What you see in Mozilla is usually optimized for the screen... what you see in a PDF isn't. Xpdf by default is going to try and make things 72 dpi, which may work with what it's going to display, and may not. Further, Mozilla is going to be preferring TrueType's by default, while xpdf is more than likely trying to use Type1's. Unless you can point *at the same font* (not the same name, the same font), in both xpdf and Mozilla, and choose one, there's no basis to make a comparison. If you play with the -t1lib option in xpdf, and the rendering of the displayed font changes, then it's preferring Type1's. At least for that particular PDF, of course. > - If Xpdf was instead using libXft.so.2 would I see an improvement in > font rendering? Possible but not likely. > - Is the issue described at http://www.freetype.org/patents.html a > factor? That is, would enabling the "TrueType bytecode interpreter" in > FreeType2 improve fonts for my libXft.so.2 linked programs much? I believe Debian's libfreetype has the interpreter enabled, although this has gone back and forth several times. > - Or, is one of the problems the fonts selected in the PDF file just are > not that great? Ah, got it in one. -- Marc Wilson | Lying is an indispensable part of making life [EMAIL PROTECTED] | tolerable. -- Bergan Evans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
