Christian Mikovits posted on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:20:32 +0100 as excerpted:
>> On Sunday Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>
>>> Here is an example of wrong rendering in Okular:
>>>
>>> http://i45.tinypic.com/2vc9dlx.png
>>>
>>> Here is how Acrobat renders it:
>>>
>>> http://i48.tinypic.com/3028c5v.jpg
>>>
>>> And the PDF is:
>>>
>>> http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf
>>>
> Funny, also no problem for me with okular:
>
> http://i45.tinypic.com/2vc9dlx.png
Check the contents for the PDF to find the page, BTW, or search for "Why
Unix Vendors". It's pg 50 here, tho only labeled pg 10 on the page
itself.
If you look at it, that looks way more like his "bad" rendering Okular
than his "good" rendering Acrobat. The font is "fat" just as in Okular,
not the thin one Acrobat uses.
However, while I've glanced at the source in the pdf, I don't know what
I'm looking at in terms of whether it has embedded fonts or not, so it
doesn't help me. If it doesn't embed fonts, then both Acrobat and Okular
should be using native platform fonts. If it does, then Acrobat's almost
certainly using the embedded fonts, while Okular... has a checkbox to use
embedded or native (under configure backends, Ghostscript, which is the
only backend I have here), and no one has mentioned whether they have
that checked or not. Tho here it doesn't seem to matter so it's probably
not embedded. But in that case, Acrobat is definitely choosing a
different font than Okular! They're both Serif fonts, but the one Okular
uses is significantly fatter. Either that or maybe Okular or ghostscript
is ignoring that option and using platform fonts regardless.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
