On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:29 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 09:51:53PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > > The patents for the former expired but apparently some fonts look > > worse with it so we decided to disable it. > > (I have been running with it enabled for years and for me stuff does > > look _way_ better with the bci ... but well this is a subjective > > thing). > > Take a look at the two screenshots I attached to bug > <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547532>. > > I think that, while it might be subjective, it's pretty clear that the > "without bytecode" version is much, much better for Inconsolata -- which I > spend my day using. Depends on the criteria you use. The "with bytecode" version has better kerning, better shapes, better flow, but is blurry (yeah, without subpixel hintinting the fonts just are blurry and that's the main cause why people say they look ugly). The "with bytecode" on the other hand is perfectly crisp, but the shapes are worse, the flow is not so smooth, some letters look a little deformed... With that said I use subpixel hinting and I usually personally prefer the autohinter (but this one depends on the font, some look better to me autohinted, some using BCI...). But generally, if font looks bad hinted when using BCI, it's most likely a bug in font, but when BCI is not present we need to fall back to autohinter, not just turn off the hinting. Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
