You are not logged in.
After upgrading freetype from current to the latest version I noticed that my fonts changed. The rendering was thicker, as in most other linux distributions. Not that it was bad, but I prefer the thin ones Arch had up to now.To solve it I just downgraded freetype to the previous version and everything is fine, but I wonder if the change is due to the way both versions are configured/compiled or is it an internal change in freetype?
I ask because I'd like to keep this thinner fonts, so I want to know if I should just stop upgrading freetype forever or could I recompile the latest version to get this kind of fonts?
Offline
my fonts are messed up, too, with "thin and spindly disease" again. my bitstream vera sans are really out of whack and look more like verdana. it happens everytime they upgrade freetype. but that's the tradeoff you get in arch -- nothing's perfect. if you use arch, you have to get used to bad fonts. that's just the way it is for some reason.
>>to answer your question more specifically, i think it's mostly because of changes in freetype2 itself. like you, i just downgrade to a version i like, which i keep on hand for future upgrades. i ignore freetype2 in pacman.conf to make sure i notice it, and when it upgrades i check it out. if i don't like it, i just go back to the old one until the next upgrade.
Offline
Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll do the same, ignore freetype in pacman.conf and upgrade manually. And I'll keep this version I like to downgrade when needed.
Though fonts have looked great for me for a long time now. It was only the last upgrade that made them worse (and just as "bad" as any other distro).
Offline
I solved this problem changing the sub-pixel hinting to RGB and hinting style to full in the control center (KDE).
Maybe this will help:
[gustavo@claudia ~]$ cat /home/gustavo/.fonts.conf
<xml>
<DOCTYPE>
<fontconfig>
<match>
<edit>
<const>rgb</const>
</edit>
</match>
<match>
<edit>
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match>
<edit>
<const>hintfull</const>
</edit>
</match>
<match>
<edit>
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>
</fontconfig>
[gustavo@claudia ~]$
Offline
in my case these settings doesn't solve the problem! some people have the same problem. there is also a thread in the german forum about this topic but there is also no solution!
Offline
Hi
still no possible solution?
i think its a problem with the ~/.fonts.conf. If i change
<match>
<edit>
<const>hintmedium</const>
</edit>
</match>
to "hintfull" or "hintlow" (theres no difference so i think this variables doesn't exist, [but gustavo said that he has changed it in the KDE control center, so they should exist ] ) my terminal font (gnome-terminal) is great (with hintmedium it looks quiet bad).
well...this maybe "solves" one of my problems, but i've a second.
The Fonts in OpenOffice.org looks bad, quiet bad, and i've no idea to change it.
Bye,
Wolf
Offline
I solved this problem changing the sub-pixel hinting to RGB and hinting style to full in the control center (KDE).
Thanks.
Works for me
Offline
I just had the same problem: reckless and a little bit tired as I just were I updated fontconfig and after startinx Xorg I was all like "OMG! It is horrible!" Then I read up on the Wiki and found a comment of a user that said that autohinting is inferior to the bytecode interpreter and that it should be turned off. In fact, after turning off the Autohinter and setting Sub-Pixel-Rendering to RGB from RGBA, all my problems were gone. I have shiny, crispy fonts again. Hooray!
HTH
Todays mistakes are tomorrows catastrophes.
Offline
after al little bit of reconfiguration, my fonts look better than ever. yay!
Offline
what for a reconfiguration exactly?
Offline
Anyone still have a problem with Open Office? Every app looks good when going to full hinting except Open Office for me (still has teh fuzzy bold fonts).
--
JSkier
Offline
yep, i've still problems with openoffice
but look here:
Offline
After the update at first fonts on a few forum sites (INCLUDING THIS ONE !) were so horrible i started tweaking, couldn't get it right and downgraded to the previous version.
Everything looked fine, so i started to wonder what had changed.
Turns out only 1 thing was different : bitmap fonts were not disabled explicitly in the new version.
I disabled them by making a symlink from /etc/fonts/font.avail/70-no-bitmaps.conf to /etc/fonts/conf.d using MC.
Now everything is great and indeed looks even better than before.
Guess i'll be checking my fonts to remove all bitmaps.
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
(A works at time B) && (time C > time B ) ≠ (A works at time C)
Offline
I've upgraded again and I don't see fonts so bad. Maybe the new fontconfig did something about them. However, I'm trying to decide with ones I like better, the old thinner ones or the new thicker ones. I've taken a screenshot of both (plus windows' fonts) to compare. The one at the top is how they look now, the second how they looked before and the one at the bottom is how they look in Windows (just to compare, not that I prefer those ones).
[URL=http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=compareuy1.png][/URL]
Now I took the word "development" and made it bigger to see the differences. The first one seems to use anti-aliasing everywhere, even in vertical and horizontal lines. The second only uses anti-aliasing in sloped lines. While in Windows' fonts no anti-aliasing is used (instead it tries to minimize the sloped lines, though sometimes it's impossible, as in the letter "v").
[URL=http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=comparebigoq2.png][/URL]
Which one of Arch's fonts do you think is better?
Offline
Which one of Arch's fonts do you think is better?
It really depends alot upon how your eyes interpret the fonts. For example, I have always preferred the "thicker" fonts and set my local configs for that effect. However, I've switched them on the same machine for others to look at and often their response is that my preference appears blurry to them, and they generally call the thinner fonts "crisper" and easier to read. To my eyes those same fonts are very hard to define and cause my sight to strain.
So, it depends...
/path/to/Truth
Offline
I used to like the autohinter, but forcing that with freetype 2.2.1 makes it look like crap IMHO, but only on TFT screens then, because the CRT at my job looks great with autohinting.
I never liked the thin appearance of bytecode hinted fonts. Now freetype 2.2.1 made it look a bit thicker, the fonts are nice and fine with bytecode hinting IMHO. I switched installed fontconfig with the vanilla settings that are in the package and deleted all my fontconfig custom configuration stuff, it looks great to me this way.
Offline
My fonts look all pretty good after upgrade but not "Monospace". This one looks like crap, see here
[URL=http://img275.imageshack.us/my.php?image=terminalfontyn7.jpg][/URL]
Everything looks good but not terminal with "monospace 10"
How can i resolve this?
Offline
I switched installed fontconfig with the vanilla settings that are in the package and deleted all my fontconfig custom configuration stuff, it looks great to me this way.
Backed-up my cofigs and went with the vanilla settings as well just to see based on your post. I came to the same conclusion and have kept the default install configs as the fonts look great. Very nice to no longer have to tweak those font settings.
@detto I can't duplicate that effect in my Terminal application.
/path/to/Truth
Offline
That's pretty weird.
This is the result of a clean and totally fresh install including fonts ttf-ms-fonts and ttf-dejavu. I never had this problem but now it happened and i dont have a clue about fonts, dpi and the like :oops:
Any helping hand? :?
Offline
That's pretty weird.
This is the result of a clean and totally fresh install including fonts ttf-ms-fonts and ttf-dejavu. I never had this problem but now it happened and i dont have a clue about fonts, dpi and the like :oops:
Any helping hand? :?
part of the problem might be that it's not monospace. it's a serif font like TNR or bitstream vera. maybe that's why it looks funky. i guess whatever name you're using for the font isn't the exact name that's required, so it's defaulting to the serif. :?:
Offline
I've upgraded again and I don't see fonts so bad. Maybe the new fontconfig did something about them. However, I'm trying to decide with ones I like better, the old thinner ones or the new thicker ones. I've taken a screenshot of both (plus windows' fonts) to compare. The one at the top is how they look now, the second how they looked before and the one at the bottom is how they look in Windows (just to compare, not that I prefer those ones).
[URL=http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=compareuy1.png][/URL]
the first one definitely looks better, imo. i like the fatter fonts, the spindly ones look weak to me.
what are you changing to get that? can you PM me your .fonts.conf or whatever you're using? btw, do you have TFT or CRT? i have a TFT and have tried autohinting both on and off, but it looks like total crap with it off.
@JGC: could you post/PM details of how you achieve good fonts with your configurations? i'd like to collect all this "advanced configuration" info and add it to the wiki.
Offline
what are you changing to get that? can you PM me your .fonts.conf or whatever you're using?
I'm not changing anything. The thick fonts are the default ones after I upgraded freetype to the current one. I have no special settings in my directory. I just use Bitstream Vera Sans as my font (I never install the MS fonts, which look bad in Linux to me)
btw, do you have TFT or CRT? i have a TFT and have tried autohinting both on and off, but it looks like total crap with it off.
I have a CRT, since TFT screens hurt my eyes with their crispness. I prefer the smooth CRT image. I use the defult hinting (medium), though I've found that if I turn it to full hinting I get the thinner fonts too with this latest freetype, so now I can choose without the need to downgrade.
Offline
slackhack wrote:btw, do you have TFT or CRT? i have a TFT and have tried autohinting both on and off, but it looks like total crap with it off.
I have a CRT, since TFT screens hurt my eyes with their crispness. I prefer the smooth CRT image. I use the defult hinting (medium), though I've found that if I turn it to full hinting I get the thinner fonts too with this latest freetype, so now I can choose without the need to downgrade.
that must be the reason, because i have a TFT and just upgraded to the latest freetype2/fontconfig, and the fonts look worse than ever. changing hintfull to hintmedium in ~/.fonts.conf has no effect whatsoever. i moved the /etc/fonts/conf.d directory, no effect, removed local.conf, no effect. nothing seems to fix them, it's really annoying. and worst of all, the old freetype2 isn't installing because it requires an older fontconfig, and when i try to install an older fontconfig, i get some libexpat library error and everything crashes when i try to launch it.
>>update: i just checked in gnome, and the fonts look really good there. XFCE4 must use some different method of hinting the fonts than gnome, which i thought uses the freetype2 autohinter. i changed hinting to medium in the xfce4 UI settings, and that improved things a little, even though i have hintmedium set in ~/.fonts.conf. maybe xfce4 uses the BCI hinter and bypasses the freetype hinter?
Offline
Restore the conf.d directory in the package state (check the install scriptlet for that), then get rid of custom configuration and remove your ~/.fonts.conf and all should look fine again.
Offline
i've tried some of that, but when i remove my .fonts.conf and the local.conf, it looks totally horrible.
what does it mean, "restore in the package state?" like getting the original back? how exactly do i do that? i have changed things in conf.d like f.ex 01-autohinter.conf to 10-autohinter.conf, does that matter? 01- 03- 09- (for the no-subpixel, yes-bitmaps, etc.) doesn't seem to conform to the standards in the conf.avail/readme, so i changed them to match the way they're labeled in conf.avail.
so far it appears that a ~/.fonts.conf with subpixel = none, hinting = true/hintfull, autohint = true; a local.conf with autohint = true, subpixel = none; the conf.d directory; and hinting = medium in the xfce4 settings gives the best results. if i change any of those, i get some serious ugly. :shock:
Offline