[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wine-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] gdi32: Antialias fake bold or italic fonts regardless of GASP table.
From:       Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-09-29 9:43:13
Message-ID: 560A5D31.8090106 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 29.09.2015 12:40, Ken Thomases wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2015, at 4:21 AM, Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I think in some cases it makes sense to disable emboldening entirely, because as \
> > you said rendered images are ruined, but not only by moving outline points \
> > around. Some fonts, I think it applies to CJK fonts more than others, have \
> > prerendered embedded bitmaps to improve legibility in small sizes, but when we \
> > fake bold or oblique styles we disable bitmaps explicitly, and this goes against \
> > the idea font designer had in mind. Enabling AA could probably help, but not \
> > necessary as well as using bitmaps. Of course this has to be tested on windows \
> > using fonts that provide bitmaps, to see if they respond to bold simulation at \
> > all at sizes that are supposed to use bitmaps.
> 
> Well, in general, I think Windows simulates bold using an entirely different \
> technique.  I haven't tested in any thorough fashion, but I did look briefly at one \
> point.  It looks like Windows just draws the glyph twice with the second time being \
> shifted right by one pixel. 

Interesting, that could explain test results we have, where advances are 
adjusted by one pixel only.

> > > There is a new registry setting to disable this and revert to the previous
> > > behavior:
> > > 
> > > [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Wine\Fonts]
> > > "AntialiasFakeBoldOrItalic"="n"
> > 
> > What's a problem of ignoring GASP and following global AA settings in such cases? \
> > I mean are you aware of any problems that could potentially need such switch?
> 
> No specific problems other than people are picky about their fonts.  It's \
> conceivable that some people would prefer the old way to the new.  In the \
> CodeWeavers bug tracker where I first proposed this patch (bug 12270, if you care), \
> I got pushback about the lack of a registry setting to turn this off.  So, I added \
> a registry setting. 

Ok.

> -Ken
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]