[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd
From: |
Алексей Подтележников |
Subject: |
Re: [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:11:37 -0400 |
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Leon Woestenberg
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Attention: blind test. Check the quality of o's.
>>> The better image is vanilla 2.4.3.
>>> The worse image is the HEAD.
>>
>> I consider conic0.png the better image. However, the differences are
>> very subtle.
>
> I also consider conic0.png to be slightly better (I did the blind test
> *before* reading Werner's response).
Yes, conic0 == 2.4.3, conic_0 == HEAD
The attached is hinted rendering now.
Look for differences between e's and o's.
hinted_conic_.png
Description: PNG image
hinted_conic.png
Description: PNG image
- [ft-devel] FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd, Алексей Подтележников, 2010/10/16
- [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd, Werner LEMBERG, 2010/10/17
- [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd, Алексей Подтележников, 2010/10/17
- [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd, Алексей Подтележников, 2010/10/20
- Re: [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd, GRAHAM ASHER, 2010/10/20
- [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd, Werner LEMBERG, 2010/10/20
- [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd, Алексей Подтележников, 2010/10/21
- [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd, Werner LEMBERG, 2010/10/22
- Re: [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd, Leon Woestenberg, 2010/10/24
- Re: [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd,
Алексей Подтележников <=
- Re: [ft-devel] Re: FT_MAX_CURVE_DEVIATION vs ONE_PIXEL cont'd, Werner LEMBERG, 2010/10/26