Keith Packard wrote: > The current filter was designed to be used in conjunction with well hinted > text, that's for sure. I wonder if you might compare the results of > correctly hinted glyphs with your new filter; I'm concerned that extending > the filter beyond a single pixel will cause those edges to be fuzzier. We might disagree about what correct hinting is--I happen to think that Freetype's medium autohinting (shown in my screenshots) gives the best fonts I've ever seen on a computer screen. I'm sure it's a matter of opinion. If by correct hinting you mean Freetype's full hinting, here are some screenshots of that under the two filters: <http://www.kaseorg.com/~anders/subpixel-before-fullhinting.png> <http://www.kaseorg.com/~anders/subpixel-after-fullhinting.png> Again, my filter seems to give reduced color artifacts, and doesn't look significantly blurrier. Is that what you wanted, or should I compare something else? A closeup of full hinting with the current filter shows that subpixel antialiasing only gets applied to diagonal and curved strokes; the rest is black and white. I think that's wrong, because a row of white, black, white gets shown as "RGB___RGB", and the red and blue parts are off center by 1/3 of a pixel. Indeed, if I look really closely at the screen, I can see fringes of blue and red surrounding the vertical black lines. My filter borders those lines with very light orange and cyan to maintain balance. In xmag, that looks as if it would blur things, but on the actual screen, it results in sharp black lines. However, with subpixel rendering (and good filtering :-)) there isn't much of an advantage to snapping things to whole-pixel boundaries (at least horizontally), as full hinting currently does. It would make more sense to hint to pixel boundaries vertically and subpixel boundaries horizontally. Is it possible to make Freetype do that? Anders
