On 15-08-07 05:55 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> Got any screenshots before / after?
>
> Sorry, no. I've only played around with a single font from Titus, but
So, what did you verity at all? I can't reproduce any improvements so far.
This effect:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/behdad/3476951
>> Sorry, no. I've only played around with a single font from Titus, but
>
> So, what did you verity at all?
I've verified that the vertical position for the joining glyphs are
the same in his font...
> I can't reproduce any improvements so far.
> This effect:
>
> https://www.flickr.com/pho
On 15-08-07 04:16 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, no. I've only played around with a single font from Titus, but
>>
>> So, what did you verity at all?
>
> I've verified that the vertical position for the joining glyphs are
> the same in his font...
>
>> I can't reproduce any improvemen
>> I've verified that the vertical position for the joining glyphs are
>> the same in his font...
>>
>>> I can't reproduce any improvements so far.
>>> This effect:
>>>
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/behdad/34769511/
>>>
>>> still happens in my limited testing.
>>
>> ... and apparently this
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 05:24:17PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> >> I've verified that the vertical position for the joining glyphs are
> >> the same in his font...
> >>
> >>> I can't reproduce any improvements so far.
> >>> This effect:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/behdad/34769
> Per (old?) Microsoft recommendation [1], both approaches are
> incorrect.
Yes, very old recommendation, from 2002. Today, this approach is no
longer valid if you use anti-aliasing.
Werner
___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.o
Hello Dave,
your response has motivated me to spend some time looking into linear
blending :) It turns out that other people had the same idea before, I
found https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28549 but the
discussion there seems to have died quickly and the bug reporter told me
he
> I looked through the demo pages he set up[1][2] and found a
> demonstration of concept in the form of a hack of pixman. I made
> the patch apply to the current version 0.32.6 and attached it here
> (I hope it's not too big for the list?). Build the patched pixman
> somewhere and test it from t
Just committed:
[type42] Fix glyph access.
This is a severe bug: We've missed one level of indirection, as
described in the Type 42 specification. As a result, ftview
sometimes showed incorrect glyphs for given glyph names, and even
displayed `error 0x0006' (invalid argument!) in case
