Resolution indpendence

[Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen]

Steven J Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> writes:

> On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 15:29 +0200, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
>> David De La Harpe Golden <david.delaharpe.golden at gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> >
>> >> (That's discounting all the people that disagree with your "unless
>> >> it's 300+dpi there's nothing to do" stance)
>> >> 
>> >
>> > Of course, RGB subpixels of a 100DPI color display are already 300DPI in
>> > one axis.
>> 
>> Which doesn't really help, since all the subpixel anti-aliasing I've
>> seen looks horrible.
> Then the pixel order was incorrect in the cases you've seen.

No, the other pixel order(s) looked far worse.  (I've spent quite some
time experimenting with this.  Both on windows and on linux).

>
>>   The only good thing I can say about it is that
>> it makes windows at least stop horribly deforming the glyphs.
> As far as I know Windows relies on the bytecode in cleartype fonts to
> perform the hinting, so it depends on the quality of the font.  Somebody
> correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe.  Or maybe they're running a final pass with a strong
auto-hinter to eliminate as much grays as possible.  Anyway, the end
result is that turning off sub-pixel anti-aliasing makes windows
horribly deform the glyphs.  Some people think that's a feature.  I
tend to disagree.

eirik