|
|
|
@ -79,13 +79,16 @@ this doesn't like a very good way for fonts to work. |
|
|
|
|
Multiple people who have experimented with this independently (me, |
|
|
|
|
Fabian Giesen,and Maxim Shemanarev of Anti-Grain Geometry) have all |
|
|
|
|
concluded that correct gamma-correction does not produce the best |
|
|
|
|
results for fonts. font rendering just generally looks better without |
|
|
|
|
gamma correction (or probably with some arbitrary power stuck in |
|
|
|
|
results for fonts. Font rendering just generally looks better without |
|
|
|
|
gamma correction (or possibly with some arbitrary power stuck in |
|
|
|
|
there, but it's not really correcting for gamma at that point). Maybe |
|
|
|
|
this is in part a product of how we're used to fonts being on screens |
|
|
|
|
which has changed how we expect them to look (e.g. perhaps hinting |
|
|
|
|
oversharpens them and prevents the real-world thinning you'd see in |
|
|
|
|
a black-on-white text). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(AGG link on text rendering, including mention of gamma: |
|
|
|
|
http://www.antigrain.com/research/font_rasterization/ ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevertheless, even if you turn on gamma-correction, you will find that |
|
|
|
|
oversampling still helps in many cases for small fonts. |
|
|
|
|