Poor font rendering..
Phil Race
philip.race at oracle.com
Thu Mar 6 14:53:46 PST 2014
I am not sure what you are looking at but I see 255,255,255 pixels on
all sides of
the stems. The stems are touching 3 pixels. I'm talking about the ones
to the sides of
those 3 pixel wide stems.
In any case I've used Windows 7 wordpad and Segoe UI 9pt (aka 12pixel) and
can see identical rendering to your Outlook case.
Wordpad (and so I infer Outlook) is using GDI which
1) is very likely a different rasteriser (FX is using the one from
DirectWrite)
2) doesn't do sub-pixel positioning because its only got int APIs.
So this seems to come down to DirectWrite vs GDI and personal
preferences ...
-phil.
On 3/6/2014 1:57 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
> That's not true. There is a difference in the "white" space around
> the letters. The "white" pixel before the stem of the L is not 100%
> white in either case and the difference is in line with what I would
> expect if there was a sub-pixel shift..
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Phil Race <philip.race at oracle.com
> <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> There really isn't any evidence of that. If it were true you'd see
> the blending
> into the pixels either side, but the pixels either side of the
> stem are 100%
> white in both cases. And examining the subpixels inside the
> extremities of
> the stem backs me up ...
>
> -phil.
>
>
> On 3/6/2014 10:40 AM, Scott Palmer wrote:
>
> I think the stem of the L is colored differently because of
> *sub-pixel* differences in its position. I.e. it appears to
> be at the same integer position, but it isn't at the same real
> position. It looks to me like that alone could account for
> the differences.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Phil Race
> <philip.race at oracle.com <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com>
> <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com
> <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com>>> wrote:
>
> Does the evidence really support that ?
> You only need to look at the first letter "L". The stem is in
> exactly the same place isn't it? And yet the colours are
> different.
>
> The overall length is different which I attribute to rounding
> differences
> or metrics differences used in accumulating the position
> but that
> is a guess.
>
> -phil.
>
>
> On 3/6/2014 10:25 AM, Scott Palmer wrote:
>
> If you notice, in the images provided, the length of the
> rendered text in pixels is significantly different
> between the
> two examples. That supports the theory that it is simply,
> sub-optimal positioning of the glyphs that is
> resulting in the
> more pronounced LCD anti-aliasing.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Phil Race
> <philip.race at oracle.com
> <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com> <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com
> <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com>>
> <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com
> <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com>
>
> <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com
> <mailto:philip.race at oracle.com>>>> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the gamma adjustment is different ?
> FX should pick this up from the
> SystemParameterInfo SPI_GETFONTSMOOTHINGCONTRAST
> setting.
>
> I don't know what Outlook (*) uses if its a WPF
> app then
> maybe its
> picking
> up an over-ridden setting for this from the registry :
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa970267%28v=vs.110%29.aspx#gamma_level
> You should be able to check that out fairly
> easily,and you
> can use
> this
> JDK app to see what the SystemParameterInfo
> setting is.
>
> import java.awt.*;
> import java.util.*;
> public class GetGamma {
> public static void main(String args[]) {
> Toolkit tk = Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit();
> Map map =
> (Map)tk.getDesktopProperty("awt.font.desktophints");
> if (map != null) {
> for (Object k : map.keySet()) {
> System.out.println(k + " : " +
> map.get(k));
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
> C:\>c:\jdk1.8\bin\java GetGamma
> Text-specific antialiasing enable key : LCD HRGB
> antialiasing text
> mode
> Text-specific LCD contrast key : 120
>
> (*) I'm sure Outlook used to be a GDI app, but who
> knows what
> version you are using
> and what rendering technology it uses.
> I've tried to make the point many times before that
> someone can
> always point to
> a difference from 'native' rendering simply
> because the
> platforms
> like OS X and Windows
> have multiple rasterisers and multiple font
> technologies
> all of
> which are different
> from each other. So whilst any notably 'poor'
> rendering
> needs to
> be looked into
> it maybe sometimes an artifact of one rendering path
> compared to
> another ..
>
> -phil.
>
>
> On 3/6/2014 1:21 AM, Robert Fisher wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there is still room for improvement in
> terms
> of the
> 'contrast' or 'vibrancy' of fonts in JavaFX.
> Take a
> look at
> this example:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/6qSamTO.png
>
> I'm running Windows 7. What you are seeing is a
> screenshot of
> the default font, zoomed in 600%. The top text
> is JavaFX 8
> (latest build as of 3 days ago). The bottom
> text is
> Outlook
> but could just as easily have been Firefox,
> Chrome,
> Word, or
> Eclipse SWT - they're all indistinguishable to me.
>
> The JavaFX text doesn't look as vibrant. In
> particular the
> smoothing algorithm seems to be making poor colour
> choices for
> the vertical strokes. At 100% the difference
> is subtle but
> important.
>
> I have the text fill set to Color.BLACK and
> the font
> smoothing
> type set to LCD. Is there something else I can
> configure to
> get more vibrant-looking fonts?
>
> Cheers!
> Rob
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>>
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>>>
> [mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>
>
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>>
>
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>>>] Im Auftrag von
> Stephen F Northover
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. März 2014 18:30
> An: Pedro Duque Vieira; OpenJFX Mailing List
> Betreff: Re: Poor font rendering..
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
> Font rendering in FX8 is using the native
> rasterizer
> so the
> glyphs should be identical to what the
> operating system is
> rendering. That said, we may have a bug.
> Please enter
> a JIRA
> with sample code and a screen shot of the bad
> rendering. That
> will give us something concrete to work with.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
> On 2014-03-05 12:10 PM, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As evidenced by the screenshots in
> http://pixelduke.wordpress.com/
> blog posts about JMetro, javafx as
> noticeably poor
> font
> rendering
> visuals. The most recent screenshots were
> taken on a
> windows 8.1
> machine and the older ones on windows 7, using
> Segoe UI
> (windows 7 & 8 system font).
>
> 1- As this been reported?
>
> 2- Is the javafx team working on it?
>
> 3- Is there something the developer can do
> to increase
> font rendering
> quality?
>
> Thanks!
> Best regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the openjfx-dev
mailing list