31.12.2017, 03:11, "Nikolaus Waxweiler" <madig...@gmail.com>: >>> We want to get to "Gamma 1.8, darkenend": >>> https://www.freetype.org/image/BlendingExamples.png >> >> On Mac (FT and/or FT+FC *without* Infinality+Ultimate patches) I >> find 1.5 comes closer to the native CoreText font colour. 1.8 is too >> thin. > > Fair enough, depends on your screen and how much you darken. Ideally, > you match the sRGB gamma curve of roughly 2.2 that in an ideal world, > your screen matches, too. Ha! > >> And for giggles, which one looks better and which more correct in >> this screenshot (of 2 Konsole windows under X11)? > > Both look off (right: hinting, left: autohinting), specifically the > gamma correction. Looks more like a gamma of 1.0 plus maybe some > thickening/smearing via the LCD filter. Is gamma correction enabled in > your Qt build? No strong hinting preference here, still prefer left for > the slightly cleaner look should you wonder. > > The ftview program from the freetype2-demos package will render stuff in > the technical correct way I'm going on about with a default gamma of > 1.8. Use the FREETYPE_PROPERTIES env thing to toggle darkening for CFF > fonts. All of that is courtesy of Adobe. > >>> Which confirms my claim that most users will give higher priority >>> to on-screen legibility than to design veracity. Very >>> understandably so. >> >> Alternative explanation: people complain when something they know >> changes. Nobody could stand to use Macs if bitmap fonts were the >> pinnacle of on-screen legibility. > > Reworded: if most users have higher priority on on-screen legibility in > the strongly hinted sense, nobody would have used Macs before Retina > screens. Text on pre-Retina Macs is however quite readable if you get > used to the look.
Note that Mac OS X at least up to 10.5 allowed setting strong hinting in the system settings > >> Please re-read and ponder the difference between fixing something and >> "tweaking to reduce it". > > Reworded: you can't reduce the difference between different hinting > strategies without rewriting the hinting. See the attached screenshot. > Left is hinting, right is autohinting, both use the v40 hinting engine > that discards changes to vertical stems. The designers chose to clamp > horizontal stems to full pixels (the usual strategy in Win95 times), > note the thickness jump between 18 and 19 and 30 and 31 pt. The > autohinter instead pulls horizontal stems to the pixel boundary without > changing the stem thickness/width, a different design/clarity trade-off. > This is a fundamental difference you can't paper over. You can see this > even on Windows when you look at Arial and some ttfautohinted font in a > text waterfall. > > Well, okay, you could theoretically start to supersample on the y-axis > and apply some black magic, but then you might as well use autohinting. > >> Right, and where did *that* come from in discussion that's about font >> engine choice by the user? > > We are talking about giving devs the ability to ship Qt apps with > switched font engines, no? > >> That'd mean both... > > Yes :) > , > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
