On 04/19/2012 03:11 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > A small remark: > >> - No self-intersection. Now, when one says self-intersecting, one >> has to qualify. I was under the impression that assuming outlines >> are not self-intersecting was a safe assumption. However, I'm >> convinced now that this is absolutely false assumption. > > Yep. > >> I'd say assuming that each *contour* is non-self-intersecting is >> safe, ... > > No, it's not. Especially after applying TrueType bytecode some > outlines can be (intentionally) extremely distorted at small sizes.
Right. Thanks for clarifying. I mostly care about original glyph outlines right no. > And about your rasterizer: > >> I will also be presenting it at LGM and GUADEC. > > Which talk is this? I fear I will be only able to attend on May 3rd > in the afternoon. It's on May 2nd 17:00. I can present it to you over beer on May 3rd. Ok, here's the project, until I write a real announcement email today or tomorrow: http://code.google.com/p/glyphy/ > BTW, what's the main difference to the FreeType rasterizers? Or have > you been able to reuse some code? It competes with freetype-gl really. It's a GPU rasterizer. The main different with freetype-gl is that I don't do any sampling, so the glyphs are truly infinitely zoomable. The downside is that I do much (orders of magnitude) more math in the fragment shader, and do more texture lookups. That said, it runs at a decent frame rate already. If trying this on intel Linux, you need mesa with this patchset or the shaders wouldn't compile: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2012-April/020721.html behdad > Werner _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list Freetype-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
