[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL
From: |
Алексей Подтележников |
Subject: |
[ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:25:40 -0400 |
Guys,
Currently smooth/ftgrays.c contains this:
/* The maximum distance of a curve from the chord, in 64ths of a pixel; */
/* used when flattening curves. */
#define FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION 16
and this:
/* must be at least 6 bits! */
#define PIXEL_BITS 8
#define ONE_PIXEL ( 1L << PIXEL_BITS )
Wouldn't that make sense to reconcile the two and
possibly just use an explicit fraction of ONE_PIXEL instead?
If I am not confused FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION could be replaced
with a larger value. 16 / 256th is really very conservative and
you still make too many splits.
Also, s and s_limit actually mean some sort of an area measure.
It would make perfect sense to use TArea as type of these variables.
Finally, I have more "geometrical" suggestions, but I'll wait with the patch,
until I hear back Re this and my previous message.
Best,
Alexei
- [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL,
Алексей Подтележников <=
- Re: [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL, GRAHAM ASHER, 2010/10/13
- Re: [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL, Алексей Подтележников, 2010/10/13
- Re: [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL, GRAHAM ASHER, 2010/10/13
- Re: [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL, Werner LEMBERG, 2010/10/13
- Re: [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL, Алексей Подтележников, 2010/10/13
- Re: [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL, James Cloos, 2010/10/14
- Re: [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL, Алексей Подтележников, 2010/10/14
- Re: [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL, Werner LEMBERG, 2010/10/14
- Re: [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL, James Cloos, 2010/10/14
- Re: [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL, Werner LEMBERG, 2010/10/15