On Saturday December 30 2017 14:01:33 Jean-Michaël Celerier wrote: > isn't this a common complaint actually : > https://www.google.com/search?q=qt+quick+blurry+text ?
Let's put it this way: not common enough for neither the Qt nor the KWin developers to heed? ;) > In my case I am for instance sometimes developing small UI software with > some buttons, list, etc... and in this case I want the app to integrate > nicely and blend in whatever the OS and the color scheme of the user of the > software. Of course. But you wouldn't mind if they actually look better, would you? (Not that that's usually the case with "vanilla" cross-platform Qt software running on Mac; it tends to look as if designed for the visual and/or motor impaired). A few more screenshots: > But the main app I work on is a music software for artists ; these > generally have a *very strong* visual identity. We use our own CSS with > fusion style everywhere with custom fonts, pixmaps, etc etc... and the > software *has* to look the same (as in, pixel-perfect) on every platform > (given same DPI of course). I honestly don't care much about the software > integrating with the host environment; just take a look at famous software > in this category: > > * Max/MSP: https://docs.cycling74.com/max7/vignettes/images/project-edit.png > * Ableton Live: > https://img.audiofanzine.com/images/u/product/normal/ableton-live-9-suite-163826.jpg > * TouchDesigner: > http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8531/8680998191_df78973538_b.jpg > * Sonar: https://medias.audiofanzine.com/images/normal/710664.jpg > * AudioMulch: https://static.kvraudio.com/i/b/audiomulch2-2.jpg > > etc... in this case it's a good thing to pop out from other software on > your desktop (for very practical reasons, too: when you're on stage > performing a show you don't want to spend time finding where is the window > you have to click on, they all have to appear very distinct if you have > multiple software running) > > > Best, > ------- > Jean-Michaël Celerier > http://www.jcelerier.name > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 1:45 PM, René J. V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Nikolaus Waxweiler wrote: > > > > > I think you have to carefully match the rendering of CoreText (and its' > > > darkening algorithm) for users not to notice. At that point, you might > > > as well use CoreText, unless you have something very specific in mind. > > > > Remember that there's also the issue of getting the exact same font metrics > > which is important for certain users. > > > > > People notice different font rendering. > > > > Yes - but they're not likely to complain if the different look also looks > > better. And even then ... how many users complained about window titles > > looking > > blurry when KWin started using QtQuick for rendering titlebars? > > > > > The performance hit is measurable in the rendering benchmark tool > > > > Measurable in a benchmark tool doesn't mean there are performance issues. > > I've > > been using Infinality on a very slow system, without any ill effects. > > > > > consistency. Sit a Core Web font next to some random Google Font font on > > > the internet and they'll look jarringly different, like each used a > > > > If you mean fonts rendered by FreeType with and without Infinality looks > > jarringly different, then yes, that can be the case at regular point sizes > > on > > regular density displays. Which is the whole point: with the result looks > > jarringly better. > > > > > No, incorrectly hits the mark. As soon as your rendered glyph image > > > contains shades of gray, you MUST use linear alpha blending and gamma > > > correction. Everything else is incorrect. > > > The Windows and Mac platform > > > have been doing that for decades, X11 libs never did to my knowledge. > > > > Erm, I'm talking about KDE desktops using Qt4 or better, which have the > > option > > to activate sub-pixel rendering and hinting (which will be on by default > > IIRC). > > Basic X11 font rendering doesn't, indeed. Instead it relied on pre-rendered > > bitmap fonts like for a high-resolution matrix printer. And curiously those > > fonts could be displayed 100% correct - with moiré effects and blurring > > between > > the display phosphor and our retina taking care of making the letters look > > smooth enough to be pleasant. I still use some fonts like that (Monaco in > > particular) in my xterms, that I've been preserving from my PhD days on a > > Mac > > IIx running A/UX 2.0 . > > > > Either way, a long as we're talking about vector fonts rendered on a raster > > display the term correct has a very relative meaning. > > > > > The CFF darkener delivers the best > > > looking results so far, as it only counters the thinning such that the > > > font looks as meaty as before gamma correction. > > > > Again, that's in the eye of the beholder, but I still find that the > > results look > > better with than without the Infinality patch set. The only regression > > (due to > > your CFF darkener or to the FT+FC patches) is in a single font family so > > far, > > which looks washed out with the default gamma correction. That's actually > > due to > > something in the FontConfig "Ultimate" patch or tweaked config files. > > I have no idea if those are CFF fonts and can't find a reference to the > > family in > > the .conf files either. > > > > > (just look at all the fixing Infinality has to do; hinting can be a very > > > seat-of-the-pants business) > > > > It is, inevitably. It's aimed at fooling human perception and as such > > cannot be > > an exact science (unless you're a biologist or "assimilated" > > neuroscientist :)). > > > > Anyway, whether or not "we" use Infinality is not Qt's business. Or > > rather, it's > > not up to Qt to tell us what we should consider to look better and then > > take > > steps to make it impossible to use that patch set. > > > > The issue at hand here is whether or not Qt should/could allow users to > > use font > > rendering based on FreeType+FontConfig across the main platforms, with as > > the > > main argument the fact that this will allow (near) perfect cross-platform > > homogeneity in text rendering. The default should evidently be to use the > > platform native font engine (but it'd be nice if there were at least an > > env. > > variable for users to select their preferred engine and/or a way to do so > > via > > e.g. a platform theme plugin like the plasma-integration plugin or my > > github:RJVB/osx-integration.git). > > > > I've posted a few side-by-side comparisons: > > https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-65510 > > > > >> I probably would if I knew how. > > > > > > export FREETYPE_PROPERTIES=cff:no-stem-darkening=1 > > > > I see absolutely no difference between the two. Maybe simply because I'm > > not > > using any CFF fonts. > > > > R. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Development mailing list > > Development@qt-project.org > > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > > _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
