Today we feature a very interesting interview with David Turner, one of the main Freetype developers, discussing the project's past and future. These days, David continues his work in Freetype even after having been hired by Google.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-03-23
Member since:2005-07-17
I'm using Freetype, XFT and Cairo I've got from this how-to http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=343670 , and fonts look way different. Without hinting they look very similar to OSX, with full hinting it's like Windows' ClearType but much better.
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5831/fontsyd1.png
This screenshot shows text without hinting and with full hinting, it's using subpixel rendering.
Member since:2007-06-29
Member since:2006-03-23
this is the settings:
http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kdefontsettingszh8.png
that makes me quite happy, knowing that i can upgrade without having to worry.
Member since:
2006-09-08
Member since:
2006-03-23
http://img528.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kpdfconfia2.png
this is in KDE apps.
and this is in gtk+2 apps(is is from xchat):
http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xchatfontstw5.png
and this is how i want them 
Member since:
2006-09-01
I can't wait until extremely high resolution displays are common, and hinting simply doesn't make sense any more. I suspect that'll start to happen even before that patent runs out. (only two years, I'm an optimist) :-)
I'm also in the camp that prefers Mac OS X/Safari 3 font rendering (I even prefer Safari on Windows just for that - now if I could only remember my OSNews username/password which is stored in Firefox ;-P ).
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:
2005-11-14
That interview was a nice read, thanks for posting. Only one correction though:
Also, I still don't understand why Debian and Ubuntu keep distributing patent-infringing code in FreeType, while they keep MP3 and DVD playback out of their normal installs. I'm not even sure it's DFSG compliant...
Debian installs MP3 and DVD playback by default.
Member since:2007-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-07
Member since:
2006-11-30
David and the team are geniouses. I decided to attempt a port of FreeType to my operating system last year, and expected it to occupy a couple of weeks.
To my big surprise, the code only depends on a small subset of C99 and plugging it into almost any kind of architecture and build system is really easy.
I wish all coders was this quality minded.
End result? My tiny OS has better looking fonts than Windows :-)
Edited 2007-06-29 06:50
Member since:
2007-06-24
The thing is, it's pretty easy to get used to the fuzziness
While I respect and appreciate the work of David, I have a hard time being convinced by the fact that fuzzy fonts are better. Granted that fonts that use ClearType on Windows are reshaped and are not authentic, but at least they have better contrast. Unless you plan to write printed artwork in an advertising company, I think it's not worth having to pass through the fuzzyness punishment.
I'm also having a hard time believing that he hasn't tried Windows Vista at least one time to see how fonts look like on the new version of Windows. After all, fonts on Windows has been a reference for many people. I've seen many requests on the Freetype mailing list to know how to make fonts look like those on Windows. He may not like Windows, but at least trying it would be interesting.
Member since:2006-02-28
but at least they have better contrast
My experience is that high contrast strains the eye, and create some curious reaction in how image is perceived by the brain. To me, high contrast fonts create a kind of bright glow around characters, and with high density the glow goes over other character, making them very difficult to read. So as you can guess i prefer fuzzy rendering, and i often sigh after Mac OS X font rendering. Since breezy & feisty, font rendering is much better though.
Member since:2007-02-17
Member since:2005-07-02
It's a question of personal preferences. I *really* prefer the OS X/Freetype way of rendering fonts. Then again, I use rather high resolutions (1280x768 on my laptop, 1600x1200 on my desktop) so the fuzziness is barely noticeable.
Member since:2007-06-29
it's all about preferences. there is no universal "best" setting so anyone is entitled to his own opinion. You're free to like high-contrast better, which is exactly why there is a auto-hinter (or truetype bytecode interpreter) in FreeType. See, it's not like I was limiting your choices...
And I still think that it's pretty easy to get "used" to the fuzziness. that doesn't mean you'll get all hot and warm about it though :-)
regarding Vista, there are plenty of screenshots on the Internet to know exactly what it looks like. I just didn't feel the need to buy a new computer just to look at that.
Edited 2007-06-29 15:40
Member since:2005-08-12
You're not alone. I think ClearType is beautiful. It achieves the contrast of aliased with three times the detail. I mean, that's what every filtering scheme hopes to ultimately achieve, right? If so, ClearType sets the bar.
And according to the ClearType patent, the glyphs are only resized horizontally/vertically. No points are moved, so the tails on your 'y' will still look as curvy as ever.
Edited 2007-06-29 20:27
Member since:
2006-05-18
Excuse me for my ignorance...I'm trying to understand a bit of what is meant by "fuzzy". I'm running a few distributions (FC6, F7, and Ubuntu Feisty) at the moment, all of which have an LCD display. On each of these I configure gnome to use subpixel smoothing, which enables full hinting. To me, this looks outstanding...probably better than Windows XP (I have not seen Vista) and MacOS X.
Are the "fuzzy" proponents saying that they like it better when you disable hinting? For gnome, this would mean going into Details, checking None for hinting, and leaving smoothing at subpixel? When I do this, yes, the font gets fuzzier and I can see more blue and red bordering each character. Is this what you prefer?
Member since:
2005-07-08
I got a question for you, Mr. Turner ;-)
I'm one of those who HATE fuzzy fonts. CRT or LCD: it doesn't matter. I can't browse the web with a default Ubuntu setup. My eyes hurt after 5 minutes.
However, with auto-hinter, things get better. I love high-contrast. I loved the days of bitmap fonts. Unfortunately, a problem remains: fonts sizes are incorrect.
I use Tahoma, Times New Roman, Courier New, Arial and Verdana. I use Ubuntu (Feisty) and I have xorg.conf's DisplaySize set in a way that makes Xorg think im using a 96dpi display. This is a common trick and Windows does the same. I also have Xft.dpi set to 96dpi. But for a reason I still doesn't know, fonts sizes are incorrect. Tahoma, for exemple, always renders too small while Verdana renders too big. Courier New is too small too. I think Times New Roman is ok.
I can't simply tell Gnome to use Tahoma 8pt for menus and dialogs to mimic Windows because it will be too small. I have to make compromises all the time.
Is this normal?
Thank you!
Member since:
2005-07-08
Member since:
2007-06-24
I think to date there hasn't been a better font rendering on screen than ClearType. I'm not a Microsoft fan at all, I disapprove their philosophy and politics, but I agree that fonts rendered with Cleartype are clean, have high contrast and you don't get tired after a day of work in front of your computer.
There has been some effort to enhance fonts on Linux. Fonts on Linux are pretty good (ie: on CentOS). I think they still can be improved, and ClearType should be a goal (maybe it is already). Then, if some people prefer fuzzy fonts, they can turn ClearType off.
Member since:2007-06-24
I second this. ClearType is not just an unjustified request by a minority of users. There has been studies made by the University of Texas and by Microsoft that show that most people prefered ClearType, and that ClearType improves readability. You can say the Microsoft study is questionable but what would they gain lying? I think the free desktop (Linx, *BSD, Solaris) should take the best of both worlds, that would be in this case implement something like ClearType, but change the name, maybe CleanType, I'm out of imagination today (Friday evening) :-)
It's not about choosing something a small number of people prefer, it's about taking into account the result of 2 independant studies and implementing what the majority prefers or feels more comfortable with.
Here's the list of documents of the surveys and studies on ClearType:
Study - ClearType helps - Clemson, SC. - 11 April 2001
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/links/news.aspx?NID=1885
ClearType = Clear Mind
http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/12/13/503236.aspx
University of Texas - A resource for investigating how people read on screens
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/%7Ect/chi_p618.pdf
And these are blog entries:
Cleartype improves reading comprehension, study says
http://scobleizer.com/2005/10/29/cleartype-improves-reading-compreh...
What's Wrong With Apple's Font Rendering?
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000884.html
Member since:
2005-07-08
I do agree with most of you: ClearType beats Linux and OSX fonts renderers.
But ClearType is no good compared to the standard Windows fonts renderer.
Take a look:
Standard: http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/5431/standardjz8.png
cleartype: http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/7873/cleartypeku2.png
I don't understand why people prefer ClearType over standard. ClearType produces fuzzy output. I'm using a 400$ LCD monitor and I can see the artifacts introduced by sub-pixel rendering.
Why do people like fuzzy fonts? What's wrong with the good old fonts? Help me understand...
Member since:2005-06-28
Member since:2005-08-01
I used to say the same thing.
"Standard" windows fonts without hinting only look good because the fonts are precisely lined up with the pixels. This effect is achievable in Linux too.
Example:
Hinting:
http://ordorica.org/misc/gnomedesktop.png (Old freetype)
No Hinting:
http://ordorica.org/misc/xfce.png
Unfortunately, it also means the font has to be of high quality in the first place. MS Windows truetype fonts qualify, but good luck with various linux fonts (except for DejaVu). Its funny how the first fonts I always download in linux are MS fonts. (I know they are not strictly for linux either)
The pictures in the Xorg + Font wiki came from my laptop:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Xorg_and_Fonts
Since then however my font settings (and Freetype) has changed. Updated pictures are due.
Once you switch to cleartype, you'll never go back. Another thing: Cleartype fonts look best on a DVI (or digital connection) LCD. VGA doesn't do them justice (for the lack of sub-pixel precision). In fact, VGA just makes almost any LCD monitor blurry (comparatively).
You have to remember that cleartype contrast settings are also changeable:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys....
Personally, I cannot get used to Mac OS "fuzzy" fonts even though they are technically the most correct.
http://ordorica.org/misc/safari.vs.firefox.png
Moral of the story? With enough time on any one font system, my eyes will adapt. Each time I "prefer" my current fonts and can't imagine switching.
Member since:
2006-07-28
Member since:
2006-03-23
cleartype is totally horrible, as is default winblows.
default winblows will show non antialiased very ugly looking fonts, and if you enable cleartype, well, the only way to describe it is that it looks as though the fonts are like one tenth of a pixel thick(ofcourse this can not be), and are basically impossible to read.
Fonts in linux have been very good for me since i started caring about my fonts, that was around 2003 i think.
Member since:
2005-11-21
