[9fans] bitstream vera

[9fans] bitstream vera

[Scott Schwartz]

Hi folks,

I've converted Bitstream Vera to Plan 9 format:
	http://www.cse.psu.edu/~schwartz/vera.tar.bz2

I'm not sure what dpi ttf2subf is using, but I selected a handful of
point sizes, hopefully good ones.

Re: [9fans] bitstream vera

[Latchesar Ionkov]

ttf2subf uses 72 dpi.

	Lucho

On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:57:23PM -0400, Scott Schwartz said:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've converted Bitstream Vera to Plan 9 format:
> 	http://www.cse.psu.edu/~schwartz/vera.tar.bz2
>
> I'm not sure what dpi ttf2subf is using, but I selected a handful of
> point sizes, hopefully good ones.

Re: [9fans] bitstream vera

[Russ Cox]

> I've converted Bitstream Vera to Plan 9 format:
> 	http://www.cse.psu.edu/~schwartz/vera.tar.bz2
>
> I'm not sure what dpi ttf2subf is using, but I selected a handful of
> point sizes, hopefully good ones.

That's a nice font.  Does it look good in 1-bit depth?
(I find the multibit fonts too fuzzy for every-day use.
I think my eyes keep trying to focus better.)

Russ

Re: [9fans] bitstream vera

[Scott Schwartz]

| That's a nice font.  Does it look good in 1-bit depth?
| (I find the multibit fonts too fuzzy for every-day use.
| I think my eyes keep trying to focus better.)

Yes, it's pretty good.  I'll make some non-fuzzy versions.

Re: [9fans] bitstream vera

[Latchesar Ionkov]

Speaking about multibit fonts ...

I was trying to add suport for subpixel fonts. I think the easier way to
implement that is to make memimagedraw to apply the channels of the "mask"
image (if it is not monocrhome) to the appropriate channels of the "src"
image. Currently it generates a greyscale image and applies it to every
channel.

Is that change going to break anything? Is it a good idea at all?

Thanks,
	Lucho

On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 07:35:21PM -0400, Russ Cox said:
> > I've converted Bitstream Vera to Plan 9 format:
> > 	http://www.cse.psu.edu/~schwartz/vera.tar.bz2
> >
> > I'm not sure what dpi ttf2subf is using, but I selected a handful of
> > point sizes, hopefully good ones.
>
> That's a nice font.  Does it look good in 1-bit depth?
> (I find the multibit fonts too fuzzy for every-day use.
> I think my eyes keep trying to focus better.)
>
> Russ

Re: [9fans] bitstream vera

[Russ Cox]

> I was trying to add suport for subpixel fonts. I think the easier way to
> implement that is to make memimagedraw to apply the channels of the "mask"
> image (if it is not monocrhome) to the appropriate channels of the "src"
> image. Currently it generates a greyscale image and applies it to every
> channel.
>
> Is that change going to break anything?

I doubt it.  I can't think of any software that uses
color images as masks.  Perhaps faces does, but it's a
clumsy hack and would be easy to fix should the need arise.

> Is it a good idea at all?

That's less clear.  All the subpixel fonts I've seen still
look fuzzy enough that I wouldn't use them for much.

Russ

Re: [9fans] bitstream vera

[C H Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

is that canonical? any references?  i'd like to know that's really
what is supposed to be implemented, without having to
go off to investigate, since i've got a lot on at the moment.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3186 bytes --]

From: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] bitstream vera
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:05:47 -0500
Message-ID: <20031026140547.GA5550@ionkov.net>

Speaking about multibit fonts ...

I was trying to add suport for subpixel fonts. I think the easier way to
implement that is to make memimagedraw to apply the channels of the "mask"
image (if it is not monocrhome) to the appropriate channels of the "src"
image. Currently it generates a greyscale image and applies it to every
channel.

Is that change going to break anything? Is it a good idea at all?

Thanks,
	Lucho

On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 07:35:21PM -0400, Russ Cox said:
> > I've converted Bitstream Vera to Plan 9 format:
> > 	http://www.cse.psu.edu/~schwartz/vera.tar.bz2
> >
> > I'm not sure what dpi ttf2subf is using, but I selected a handful of
> > point sizes, hopefully good ones.
>
> That's a nice font.  Does it look good in 1-bit depth?
> (I find the multibit fonts too fuzzy for every-day use.
> I think my eyes keep trying to focus better.)
>
> Russ

Re: [9fans] bitstream vera

[Latchesar Ionkov]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 03:57:02PM +0000, C H Forsyth said:
> is that canonical? any references?  i'd like to know that's really
> what is supposed to be implemented, without having to
> go off to investigate, since i've got a lot on at the moment.

I don't know if it is canonical and I don't have any references. Finding out
that is one of the reasons I asked on the mailing list before I start
implementing it.

I just looks as the easiest way of implementing subpixel fonts -- the font
image is used as a mask for memdraw, if the red, green, and blue channels
from the mask are used as masks for red, green, and blue channels we can get
the subpixel font drawn properly.

Thanks,
	Lucho

> From: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
> Subject: Re: [9fans] bitstream vera
> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:05:47 -0500
>
> Speaking about multibit fonts ...
>
> I was trying to add suport for subpixel fonts. I think the easier way to
> implement that is to make memimagedraw to apply the channels of the "mask"
> image (if it is not monocrhome) to the appropriate channels of the "src"
> image. Currently it generates a greyscale image and applies it to every
> channel.
>
> Is that change going to break anything? Is it a good idea at all?
>
> Thanks,
> 	Lucho
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 07:35:21PM -0400, Russ Cox said:
> > > I've converted Bitstream Vera to Plan 9 format:
> > > 	http://www.cse.psu.edu/~schwartz/vera.tar.bz2
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what dpi ttf2subf is using, but I selected a handful of
> > > point sizes, hopefully good ones.
> >
> > That's a nice font.  Does it look good in 1-bit depth?
> > (I find the multibit fonts too fuzzy for every-day use.
> > I think my eyes keep trying to focus better.)
> >
> > Russ

Re: [9fans] sub-pixel

[Charles Forsyth]

i'm sorry that earlier message was a bit abrupt because i was in a hurry,
and it sounded a little grumpy although i wasn't.

i've since had time to look up a cheerfully enthusiastic
summary on a web page http://grc.com/ctwhat.htm,
and reduced my ignorance a bit, assuming the page is accurate.
unfortunately, now that i've read it, i'm feeling uneasy about
building so many assumptions about a particular implementation
of the display device into the drawing primitives, especially
a technique with so many restrictions.   you're probably
right that it's an easy way to get the effect you seek,
and indeed i can't suggest a sensibly constructive alternative
if that's what you aim to do, but is it the right thing to do
to the primitives?

it's possibly not as bad as the decision to build a particular
gamma correction into all image values, as is sometimes
done elsewhere, but is it really that different?  for instance,
with `sub-pixel' rendering (as i understand it) the resulting
image if stored and redisplayed won't look good
as you change the type of display.  the `only landscape
not portrait' aspect is also unsettling (it won't work on
my iPAQ, again, as i currently understand it).  unfortunately unlike
gamma correction it seems hard to shift the transformation
to the display, although that's what i'd have preferred
to do in this case.