From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,VISTA_COST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [107.161.22.3])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8C221169
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2025 06:34:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mimir.eigenstate.org ([206.124.132.107]) by 9front; Thu Jan 30 00:32:31 -0500 2025
Received: from mimir.eigenstate.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mimir.eigenstate.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id dc99ec10
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:32:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=eigenstate.org; h=
	message-id:to:subject:date:from:in-reply-to:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mail; bh=KR7KwvjBd20c
	GaADr20C0++t0aQ=; b=ggTHnmruxg86dSmY/s6B6teRWDsYBZoxUfkrTB3X9tm7
	hf5ZcRw7FPylXk7eJW8fvXFpoqFg4/t3qemF0GGeZqsz+GV5yH6QyheOzlA76Ctn
	D5OLBmGl9BMtX0ta4BmhKNdRI9xLPm1Q+PONfE8gl8rL7wAz0O1NtAsFKxaepYU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=eigenstate.org; h=message-id
	:to:subject:date:from:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mail; b=FerLqVaQen4Zm5GXEVE
	AstlC/+/nNY3LOApFU1Y6kAPQIxwxCbLJWiCSXS8Oh2D4zYwEg88eCrLXNnGWwgQ
	U6FvF2NqvFVslL7TldWVG+8ksjkTFlyu4FF8TyBT8tnXI6ns4UqyburR5GgcYyfW
	nulNJkNJSm2y5rDyNypF4b/g=
Received: from abbatoir (pool-108-6-24-2.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [108.6.24.2])
	by mimir.eigenstate.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id cb519502 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:32:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <533192C79FF4BD5575BFE4C7F627B640@eigenstate.org>
To: 9front@9front.org
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:32:28 -0500
From: ori@eigenstate.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+POUVi=ML1bfSgqp1d6Tuiw=-jytWQcaPYHA55rg=YbTFh22w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: patented advanced session-oriented hypervisor injection framework 
Subject: Re: [9front] Truetypefs anti-aliasing
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoth Paul Lalonde <paul.a.lalonde@gmail.com>:
> I posted this earlier on 9fans, but I should do it here:
> I've made a modification to truetypefs to do what ttfrender does: render
> the font at higher resolution and filter down to a good looking 8 bit font.
> 
> This is a significant improvement in the appearance of the fonts from
> truetypefs, as seen in the image below.  Left is the one-bit font, right is
> the filtered font.
> [image: image.png]
> I've attached the change, and I have questions.
> I believe in being opinionated: the 8 bit version is so much better for
> every font I've compared that I don't see any use for the 1 bit versions
> anymore.
> How do other users feel about ditching the 1 bit code path and having only
> the 8 bit code path?  This is the cleanest/smallest change.
> The alternatives would be to have a switch to truetypefs so that it always
> returns either 1 bit or 8 bit fonts; a switch in the fs setup to choose
> based on font size; a way to tell the fs what font depth to return
> (probably a hack like the font size now, very ugly).
> The cost of the filtering is low in compute for smaller point sizes, but
> starts to lag a bit at 30 point or so.  It probably also blurs out very
> small sizes.  I don't know that anyone chooses TrueType fonts for text
> under ~10pt however.
> [image: image.png]
> Thoughts?
> Paul
> 

Applied as a starting point, hoping we get improvements on the algorithm
soon.