David De La Harpe Golden
david.delaharpe.golden at gmail.com
Fri Jun 27 19:51:51 PDT 2008
Glynn Clements wrote:
> If you start from the fact that hand-crafted bitmaps are more legible
> than rasterised vectors
Perhaps in principle on low-res displays, but given the advent of
effective-res-enhancing subpixel-rendering-to-ordered-displays for that
to be true in practice even on current ca. 100DPI displays you'd need
something like amiga colorfonts  to allow you to hand-craft
individual subpixels, or at least 1-bit bitmaps drawn in 3:1  aspect
ratio , to match the legibility of hinted vector fonts.
And while very high-res displays could perhaps mean subpixel rendering
or antialiasing is not worth bothering with (though if you have the
today-typical oodles of processing power and the code already written,
might as well), when we have e-paper displays at hundreds of DPI
(_already appearing_, will presumably only get better assuming continued
lack of apocalypse), handcrafted bitmap fonts and lack of resolution
independence are getting less and less practical or desirable.
 bitmap fonts not limited to 1-bit bitmaps*
 or maybe 2:1 for that "sublcd" green/magenta perceptual
 of course assuming square pixels split into ||| subpixels, also not
necessarily valid assumptions...
* Caffeine meandering: vector colorfonts? Seems like they'd be
useful/fun for obnoxious wordart/presentations and video titling. Is
there any provision for color vector data in any vector font formats?
It's obvious there _could_ be, of course. Though I guess modern video
titling might use 3D models for glyphs for the most part though...
More information about the xorg