Dear Werner, On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:06:47 +0200 (CEST) Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Although the question "which is better result, hinted or unhinted?" >> should be evaluated since FreeType 2.4.x (because of fundamental >> change of default hinter) again, I'm afraid it cannot make everybody >> agreed to use hinted result. Some people may say: "I don't know the >> complex story in TrueType rasterizer, but I prefer unhinted result. >> I don't want to enable hinter by default". > >I have no opinion on this, but providing the ability to use the >autohinter exclusively might have some benefits, so I don't object to >improvements here.
In fact, in poppler list, JustFillBug posted an idea the user configurable file listing the fonts to be hinted (or unhinted) forcibly: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/poppler/2010-August/006291.html However, I think, it is difficult for FreeType2 to have an interface to manage such file, and it is the task of higher layer libraries/applications. However, in this case (nameless MingLiU embedded in PDF), the target font is difficult to identify. So David's proposal is very attractive. >Just curious: Is the result of the `tricky' operations on a font >really resolution independent, this is, are the subglyphs first >shifted to default positions, then moved again to fit the selected >ppem value? I think the tricky operation is almost independent with the resolution, I will make some pictures with different resolution / point sizes. BTW, while collecting the fonts using such tricky hints (to make a list of table checksum), I found yet-another Kaishu font showing heavily broken shape: https://www.codeblog.org/blog/mpsuzuki/images/20100827_0.png I have to register this :-) Regards, mpsuzuki P.S. Tomorrow my office will have scheduled black out, and next my post will be lated. _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list Freetype-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel