Bug#730742: Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1
Control: close -1 2.5.2-2 On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 10:48:09PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > >> So why not changing only the default UI font in GNOME until Cantarell gets > >> fixed, instead of disabling a nice improvement like that? > >> Droid or DejaVu could be a valid substitute in the meanwhile. > > I don't control what fonts the GNOME maintainers are using. You'll need to > > take this up with them with a bug report on the relevant packages. > Since the core issue for this bug is gnome font choices, I don't think > this belongs to freetype anymore. > So, maybe it can be closed or reassigned to a gnome package? Yes, this bug should be closed; I hadn't realized it had been reopened. If there is a bug in the GNOME font, then as I said, someone should take that up with the maintainers via a bug report on the relevant packages. If and when those problems are fixed and we should re-evaluate the freetype defaults, someone can open a bug report against freetype again to ask for this change. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Processed: Re: Bug#730742: Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1
Processing control commands: > close -1 2.5.2-2 Bug #730742 [libfreetype6] Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1 Marked as fixed in versions freetype/2.5.2-2. Bug #730742 [libfreetype6] Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1 Marked Bug as done -- 730742: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=730742 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#730742: Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: >> So why not changing only the default UI font in GNOME until Cantarell gets >> fixed, instead of disabling a nice improvement like that? >> Droid or DejaVu could be a valid substitute in the meanwhile. > > I don't control what fonts the GNOME maintainers are using. You'll need to > take this up with them with a bug report on the relevant packages. Since the core issue for this bug is gnome font choices, I don't think this belongs to freetype anymore. So, maybe it can be closed or reassigned to a gnome package? Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#730742: Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote: > So, the issue seems not to be on the font itself, but rather on the > rasterizer and people's preferences. > > I still agree with Jason Pleau that Adobe rasterizer should be preferred. > The reason I didn't ship OTF in my packages earlier was that, with the > old rasterizer, while the glyphs appeared sharp for some sizes, they > appeared inconsistent on some others. > > I've created a waterfall test page for Cantarell font here: > > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/tmp/fonttest/cantarell-waterfall.html > > The paragraphs start from 6pt, then increase by 1pt up to 16pt. > And the results of the old rasterizer is: > > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140924-cantarell-wf-old-engine.png > > Notice the inconsistent stem widths at 12pt and 13pt for regular > weight, where the horizontal and diagonal stems appear thicker than > vertical ones. (Look at the glyph M, O, Q, q, for example. And look how X > appears thicker than F, T, H, E.) > > And notice how the glyphs get suddenly thicker from 13pt to 14pt. > > Now compare it with the result of Adobe rasterizer: > > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140924-cantarell-wf-new-engine.png > > The stem widths are more consistent both within the same size and > between different sizes. FYI, as the freeze is coming close, while my life has been extremely busy lately (I'm getting married), I'm reverting my font packages to TTF for now, although I think Adobe CFF rasterizer should be preferred in general, even for Cantarell itself, not just for my fonts. Regards, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#730742: Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > So if this is only a problem with the GNOME3 default font, please get that > font fixed in Debian, after which I am willing to reinstate the Adobe > engine. But I'm not willing to enable it while it represents a regression > vs. wheezy for a significant number of our desktop users. Here's my first try, using fontforge: - Apply autohint to all glyphs. - Adjust BlueValues to cover all glyphs to prevent overshoots on some glyphs without touching the splines. It appears to address a different problem: overshooting on small sizes, not the stem fuzziness as raised in this bug. So, the issue seems not to be on the font itself, but rather on the rasterizer and people's preferences. I still agree with Jason Pleau that Adobe rasterizer should be preferred. The reason I didn't ship OTF in my packages earlier was that, with the old rasterizer, while the glyphs appeared sharp for some sizes, they appeared inconsistent on some others. I've created a waterfall test page for Cantarell font here: http://linux.thai.net/~thep/tmp/fonttest/cantarell-waterfall.html The paragraphs start from 6pt, then increase by 1pt up to 16pt. And the results of the old rasterizer is: http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140924-cantarell-wf-old-engine.png Notice the inconsistent stem widths at 12pt and 13pt for regular weight, where the horizontal and diagonal stems appear thicker than vertical ones. (Look at the glyph M, O, Q, q, for example. And look how X appears thicker than F, T, H, E.) And notice how the glyphs get suddenly thicker from 13pt to 14pt. Now compare it with the result of Adobe rasterizer: http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140924-cantarell-wf-new-engine.png The stem widths are more consistent both within the same size and between different sizes. Regards, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ Cantarell-Regular.otf Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.formula-template
Bug#730742: Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:47:11AM +0200, BubuXP wrote: > Il 23/set/2014 08:51 "Steve Langasek" ha scritto: > > So if this is only a problem with the GNOME3 default font, please get that > > font fixed in Debian, after which I am willing to reinstate the Adobe > > engine. But I'm not willing to enable it while it represents a regression > > vs. wheezy for a significant number of our desktop users. > So why not changing only the default UI font in GNOME until Cantarell gets > fixed, instead of disabling a nice improvement like that? > Droid or DejaVu could be a valid substitute in the meanwhile. I don't control what fonts the GNOME maintainers are using. You'll need to take this up with them with a bug report on the relevant packages. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#730742: Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1
Il 23/set/2014 08:51 "Steve Langasek" ha scritto: > > So if this is only a problem with the GNOME3 default font, please get that > font fixed in Debian, after which I am willing to reinstate the Adobe > engine. But I'm not willing to enable it while it represents a regression > vs. wheezy for a significant number of our desktop users. So why not changing only the default UI font in GNOME until Cantarell gets fixed, instead of disabling a nice improvement like that? Droid or DejaVu could be a valid substitute in the meanwhile.
Bug#730742: Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 09:25:33AM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote: > Package: libfreetype6 > Version: 2.5.2-2 > Followup-For: Bug #730742 > Control: reopen -1 > Dear Maintainer, > I also prefer Adobe rasterizer, to the point that my font packages, > namely fonts-tlwg-*, have switched from TTF to OTF due to the improved > quality it provides. The result was better control on glyph shapes > (because the fonts are developed using cubic splines) with smaller > installation size. > Switching back to the old engine causes regression on my fonts, especially > on terminal with dark background: > New engine: > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-new-engine-2.png > Old engine: > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-old-engine-2.png > New engine: > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-new-engine-1.png > Old engine: > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-old-engine-1.png > So, I agree with Jason Pleau that Adobe engine is preferred. > However, instead of providing alternative packages, I think the patch > should be reverted and the poorly-hinted Cantarell font be fixed instead, > as pointed out here in upstream mailing list (according to BubuXP's > comment #118 above): > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/freetype/2014-01/msg00011.html > I've checked Cantarell font, and its hints are really poor as described. > I'm reopening the bug, so the discussion can be continued. So if this is only a problem with the GNOME3 default font, please get that font fixed in Debian, after which I am willing to reinstate the Adobe engine. But I'm not willing to enable it while it represents a regression vs. wheezy for a significant number of our desktop users. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#730742: Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1
Package: libfreetype6 Version: 2.5.2-2 Followup-For: Bug #730742 Control: reopen -1 Dear Maintainer, I also prefer Adobe rasterizer, to the point that my font packages, namely fonts-tlwg-*, have switched from TTF to OTF due to the improved quality it provides. The result was better control on glyph shapes (because the fonts are developed using cubic splines) with smaller installation size. Switching back to the old engine causes regression on my fonts, especially on terminal with dark background: New engine: http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-new-engine-2.png Old engine: http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-old-engine-2.png New engine: http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-new-engine-1.png Old engine: http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-old-engine-1.png So, I agree with Jason Pleau that Adobe engine is preferred. However, instead of providing alternative packages, I think the patch should be reverted and the poorly-hinted Cantarell font be fixed instead, as pointed out here in upstream mailing list (according to BubuXP's comment #118 above): https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/freetype/2014-01/msg00011.html I've checked Cantarell font, and its hints are really poor as described. I'm reopening the bug, so the discussion can be continued. -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.16-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=th_TH.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=th_TH.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages libfreetype6 depends on: ii libc6 2.19-11 ii libpng12-0 1.2.50-2 ii multiarch-support 2.19-11 ii zlib1g 1:1.2.8.dfsg-2 libfreetype6 recommends no packages. libfreetype6 suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#730742: Font rendering fuzzy (straight lines smeared across subpixels) since upgrade to 2.5.1
I can see that this patch fixed the issue for some people, I (and maybe others too?) preferred the way the fonts were rendered with the Adobe hinter. From what I can see we can't have both in the same package as the engine used (freetype or adobe) is decided at compile time. Is there something we can do to allow both versions to be in Debian? Perhaps another package with the Adobe engine enabled, that would conflict with libfreetype6 ? Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
