View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Marc Liyanage Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:54 am Post subject: Improved font rendering with David Chester patches |
|
I don't know if this is old news, but I just rebuilt a new FreeType library with the great patches by David Chester applied. The font display on my machine is way better now.
Check out the font comparison images on my OS X OpenOffice tips page:
http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/docs/openoffice-mac/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP The One
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
This actually does raise an interesting point...up until now we've been loading whatever freetype is installed on the system. That does allow nice things like this to be applied across all X11 applications. The other option is that we include a specific build of freetype with the installer and OOo can only work with that one and no other.
Comments? Thoughts?
ed |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sardisson Town Crier
Joined: Feb 01, 2004 Posts: 4588
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
Didn't the 1.0.3GM installer include some sort of freetype to install in the event that the freetype on the target system was too old? How did you choose what/whose freetype to include?
Given that "awful fonts" is one of the most common complaints about OOo, an "upgraded" freetype would be a nice thing to include...and ratchet up the testing scenarios by an order of magnitude
If I understood Marc's article correctly, the particular version of freetype he's made available was compiled not just with these new patches, but also with the "I have a license to use Apple's patented hinting routines" flag set. (Why Apple didn't do that with Panther's X11.app's freetype is beyond my ability to fathom.) As a generally law-abiding citizen, this raises a few question-marks for me, but given I'm using an Apple OS and and an Apple-provided X11 implementation, I feel it's a grey enough area for personal use--so the enhanced freetype is on my list of to-do items for the weekend. I don't know, however, how this "grey enough for personal use" might translate into the realm of mass distribution and installation.
If it "clears legal," so to speak, then I'm all for better font rendering for the people
Smokey |
|
Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP The One
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
Well, if it incorporated the patented TrueType hinting stuff then we definitely couldn't redistribute it. I didn't RTFA fully myself but just looked at the pretty pictures With some of the truetype hinting stuff there are definitely patents involved.
The freetype installers that were included in previous versions were stock freetype installers, usually from osxgnu or some other source. The idea was that we included the installer for the version we depended upon but then the user's X11 installation could upgrade if necessary. We require 6.2, for example, but Apple X11 uses 6.3 and OOo uses it in kind.
The question is whether or not we should deviate from that strategy and try to break off our own unique freetype to include with the installer. Of course, if there are patent issues involved then we're fucked, but let's ignore that for now
ed |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marc Liyanage Guest
|
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
I did indeed set the "I have a license to use Apple's patented hinting routines" flag before applying the other patches, with exactly the same reasoning; It's Apple-supplied running on an Apple-supplied OS.
I might look at what result the patches give *without* the bytecode interpreter enabled later today and post results here. If even that alone provides a big improvement, you could link to and include an appropriately patched custom libfreetype version without risking any legal issues. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marc Liyanage Guest
|
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
I just did the test with the bytecode interpreter switch disabled and the patches applied. The resulting bitmaps are pixel-for-pixel identical except for the line of one font where I'm not sure if I messed up the original document.
It looks like the flag does not have an effect anymore because the patch forces the use of the autohinter anyway.
So I would say go ahead and bundle a custom libfreetype with those patches applied with future releases of OpenOffice on Mac OS X. The user experience will be *much* better. I am using the most recent version 2.1.9.
While I have your attention, a quick follow up question: Do you think there is a way to get subpixel-rendering in OpenOffice? That was my original reason for tinkering with it. The FreeType library can do it. Is subpixel-rendering used in OpenOffice on platforms other than Mac OS X? Would it require upstream code changes? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
Umm nevermind... I just realized it's Xft that does the subpixel rendering, not FreeType. So I guess the question becomes, will OpenOffice ever draw using Xft, or will it get subpixel-rendering code itself? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sardisson Town Crier
Joined: Feb 01, 2004 Posts: 4588
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP The One
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
Unfortunately if it's Xft that really makes the benefit noticeable then OOo won't be able to really use it. The only way it'd use Xft is if some of the Linux/Unix guys are working on it. No Mac guy is certainly expending effort working on it
The only interesting thing is that Xft may not be used at all...part of the OOo 'mantra' is to try and allow documents to appear the same on any platform provided the same fonts are available. As such it has its own font layout code inside of VCL which doesn't do subpixel positioning. It uses integer positioning & kerning instead of floating point positioning and kerning (like most of the more advanced font systems). Its internals were inspired by Windows.
As to the licensing...(IANAL, so this is all just a guess)...I'm not sure if having an OS X license qualifies, but I really don't know. I know Apple does license their TrueType patents and I don't think just having a Mac OS X license gives you the right to reuse the patented technologies therein. Any thoughts on this?
Background reading on the Apple patents can be found at the freetype project:
http://www.freetype.org/patents.html
ed |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
OPENSTEP wrote: | ... Background reading on the Apple patents can be found at the freetype project: |
Just to make it clear in cause my posting was confusing: The good results can be had *without* enabling the (legally problematic) bytecode interpreter, just by applying the set of patches. So bundling and linking against a patched one would definitely be an option and an improvement for your OS X package. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kotsopoulos Red Pill
Joined: Jan 29, 2004 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:41 am Post subject: font rendering fixes |
|
I just tested this fix and it absolutely kicks ass. I posted a string of reports previously to the ooodocs forum about this very problem.
The delevelopers are doing a great job already, but please do not underestimate the impact of this improvement. It finally makes ooo X11 usable on my mac. neooffice/j was a poor substitute mainly because it's slow with documents that contain figures.
THANKS!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 5:51 am Post subject: Another happy camper |
|
I just installed Marc's patched libfreetype on my system, too, and can also confirm that it kicks butt. I haven't used OOo under OSX, myself, for a year or so, but recently showed it to a friend thinking of getting a new Mac. Unfortunately, the quality of the fonts with my default 1.1.2 install was so embarrassingly bad, I think it turned him off from OOo altogether. With Marc's changes, they are just gorgeous. I'm going to have to drag my friend back to look at it again. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|