+1 On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Martin Sourada <martin.sourada@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
