Dave,
thanks a lot for your good demonstration images! > I believe column 3 is what we want to achieve. Yes, indeed! By the way, here is another page which goes into great detail on gamma correction and TrueType font rendering: http://www.beatstamm.com/typography/RTRCh5.htm#Sec3 It might be interesting to see your tests applied to common TrueType fonts also. Beat Stamm writes about GDI ClearType: In Windows, text rendered in full-pixel anti-aliasing is displayed with a gamma correction done in software and using a gamma value of about 2.3 – to determine this γ value, I displayed a gray ramp in Word, inspected the RGB value of middle gray as rendered (189), solved L = V(1/γ) (the formula for γ correction, as opposed to γ response) for γ, and substituted the normalized inspected gray value (189/255) for L while setting V to 0.5 (half the normalized voltage should yield middle gray). Thus γ = log(V)/log(L) = log(0.5)/log(189/255) ≅ 2.314. This gamma correction appears to be in addition to what my premium graphics chip wants to do. If I “under-correct” gamma on my graphics chip, all my photos look too dark in their midtones, but text rendered in full-pixel anti-aliasing looks more natural. If I “correct” gamma for my photos, text rendered in full-pixel anti-aliasing looks “washed out.” Windows (GDI) does not have any provisions to adjust or defeat the software gamma correction of full-pixel anti-aliasing (“standard font smoothing”). So it seems that similar problems are affecting even major platforms... Werner _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list Freetype-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel