Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.)
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 12:50:27 -0300
- From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Fonts readability (was: Arial vs. Helvetica.)
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017, Nicolas George wrote:
> Another point where the bitmap fonts beat the vectorial fonts at tiny
> sizes: you usually want your vectorial fonts anti-aliased, but at tiny
> sizes it hurts readability. Even worse, the anti-aliasing is done wrong:
> it is done without taking gamma correction into account. That means that
> when 50% intensity is wanted, it produces 22% intensity instead:
> black-on-white is too thick, white-on-black is too thin.
Professional, high-quality fonts *optimized for small sizes* will have
specific glyph variations and "rendering rules" for the small sizes, and
do not suffer from the annoying misplaced anti-aliasing effects (i.e.
they will render about as nicely as a pixel-optimized bitmapped font).
However that also requires that the font rendering engine do it
perfectly (which in turn requires it to implement everything required,
for whatever is using it to *enable* all of that and not screw it up
when blitting the result, etc).
So, I am not at all surprised that it is far easier to get better
results for small sizes and terminal fonts using bitmapped fonts :-) It
should be much faster for the terminal to use the bitmapped ones, too.