Several moments:
1. Filtering algorithm in xftglyphs.c lines 508..520 (approx.) don't produces
correct results.
(Definition of "correct" in this case is very subjective, though :-), but
overall readability improvement could serve as a fair measurement.). Best
seen on thin (one pixel wide)glyphs with vertical elements. F.e. 'i' or 'l'.
While nonvertical elements of these glyphs are subpixel AA'ed, verticals do
not. This behavior produces easily noticeable 'artifacts', visually marked as
gray or slightly colored dots on or near purely black glyph.
I've implemented (very simple and inefficient, both in performance and 'color
fringe' removal) 3-level filter, provided below. While incomplete and very
limited in usage, it often gives "better" results (again, questionable, but
at least it smoothes glyphs more evenly).
for (x = 0; x < width * hmul; x += hmul)
{
#if 0
red = green = blue = 0;
o = 0;
for (s = 0; s < 3; s++)
{
red += filters[rf][s]*in[x+o];
green += filters[gf][s]*in[x+o];
blue += filters[bf][s]*in[x+o];
o += os;
}
red = red / 65536;
green = green / 65536;
blue = blue / 65536;
red += in[x+o];
green += in[x+o];
blue += in[x+o];
*out++ = (green << 24) | (red << 16) | (green << 8) |
blue;
#endif
hi1[0] = in[x ? x - 1 : x];
hi1[1] = in[x];
hi1[2] = in[x+1];
hi1[3] = in[x+2];
hi1[4] = in[x+3 >= width*hmul ? x + 2 : x + 3];
red = ((hi1[0] * 65536)/5) + ((hi1[1] * 65536 * 3)/5) +
((hi1[2] * 65536)/5);
green = ((hi1[1] * 65536)/5) + ((hi1[2] * 65536 * 3)/5) +
((hi1[3] * 65536)/5);
blue = ((hi1[2] * 65536)/5) + ((hi1[3] * 65536 * 3)/5) +
((hi1[4] * 65536)/5);
*out++ = ((red / 65536) << 16) | ((green / 65536) << 8) |
(blue/65536);
}
Limitations and drawbacks of this approach are obvious. First and foremost is
unacessibility of pixel values outside of glyph's bitmap. Again, this is
mostly visible on sans-serif fonts (serifs are 'widening' the bitmap, so
vertical stems could be properly filtered on both sides) and thin vertical
glyphs (Tahoma 8-10 pt. 'i','l' or 'H'). This is incurable with current
implementation, when we're filtering each glyph separately. I think this
needs to be done on the whole string. This will help also to ensure more
smooth and visually pleasing transition from one glyph to another when
they're near (0 or one pixel between them).
--
With all the best, yarick at relex dot ru.