On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:30 PM Philip Race <philip.r...@oracle.com> wrote: > > I confess to not being 100% sure which one you thing is in some way > "unexpected". > > I *think* you are complaining only about the large size rendering of > cambria in 3.png > BEFORE the fix and that it is equally blurry with or without the fix.
Hi Phil, First of all, thanks for taking the time to explain both here and on the bug report. My surprise after this patch was that the fonts are blurry, while before the patch they are crisp. I understand that we ask the renderer to turn off snapping to grid, but my point was "why?" since it creates "worse" results (the blurry rendering instead of the crisp and readable one). However, after your explanation on the bug I went ahead and modified the test case (attached to the bug for reference) and realised why: it is more correct. If you run the test case on a JDK 11 without the patch and a JDK15 with the patch it's obvious that in order to keep the fonts aligned and "clear" with and without LCD smoothing we end up with letters shifting to place in 11 (due to the snap to grid, they will find the nearest "block", which also means this is not going to be a consistent behaviour given the font size), while they keep most of the size relationship in JDK 15 (the shifting is really still in place obviously but the fonts are allowed to consume more space so it tends to be less noticeable and generally they can keep more of the intended proportion ratio intact). I don't think this is a difference worth losing sleep over, but I tend to agree that the blurry font is a side effect I can live with when it provides a general more precise. > BTW only 1.png shows JDK version so its not clear what was used to > render each case. Yes, because they all render the same, but for clarity they are in order from the bottom to the top 8, 11, 11 patched. Cheers, Mario -- Mario Torre Associate Manager, Software Engineering Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com> 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30 9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898
