Are my fonts looking good?

adan · 2010-10-22 22:09:50

Hi there people! I want to know if my fonts configuration are ok... I have not decided yet, some bold fonts look bad, and especially in my firefox. I have installed ubuntu sources with the respective configuration, I have DPI of 96. They are not very readable and and eyestrain after a while

kpbotbot · 2010-10-22 23:06:07

From my standards, yes. Actually, I'm having the same dilemma since I have no stuff to compare my font configuration with.

edward.taylor89 · 2010-10-22 23:06:14

Judging by the quality of fonts on the pictures you provided, I believe that it will need more configuring. DPI is fine.

The laptop I'm using has the same native resolution as yours. I've set 'ttf-dejavu' as my font for applications and the system. They are very sharp(The sharpest fonts available I believe), especially with 'Subpixel Smoothing.' It is also important to set 'Smoothing' to 'Subpixel', 'Hinting' to 'Full' and 'Subpixel Order to 'RGB'. All of which can be changed via 'System', 'Appearance', then click on the 'Fonts' tab. Reboot after making these changes.

Font size on mine is set to 12 on everything(defaults are used for browsers)

Also make sure to choose 'Book' as the style.

ChoK · 2010-10-22 23:26:24

Ultimately, only you will be using the computer so only you will be able to choose if they are good enough.

A few pointers though :
- check your subpixel rendering
- cairo lcd filter http://rollingrelease.com/software/2010 … lcd-filter
- alternative infinality project http://www.infinality.net/blog/

I suggest using a sans-serif or slab-serif for a best onscreen experience.
According to http://screenfont.ca/fonts/today/webfonts-screenfonts

We already have a small collection of fonts custom-engineered for onscreen display. The best-known are Georgia and Verdana, designed by Matthew Carter for Microsoft. Tahoma and Nina (also by Carter); Trebuchet by Vincent Connare; and Vera by Jim Lyles are further examples among many. Because of careful hinting and special adaptation for computer displays, these screenfonts are generally more pleasant and easier to read than many other fonts.

Note that the DejaVu family is based on Vera, many free fonts are available under the SIL license so you can google for that or check some there http://code.google.com/webfonts
You may also be interested in the Readability extension/bookmarklet

adan · 2010-10-23 15:24:40

Thanks for the reply, but i dont know how to fix my subpixel rendering, i have the ubuntu fontconfig and its pretty hard to change.

I dont think that my problem is because of my font, because i have problems with internet in general, not my desktop.

Please please can you give me more info? THANKS!

olive · 2010-10-23 16:20:44

By experience, the Liberation fonts (or the Microsoft fonts) give better results. Try installing ttf-liberation and edit /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-latin.conf to put the Liberation fonts at the top of the lists (you may need to edit other files in the same directoty); then run fc-cache. After that run gucharmap and verify that the serif, sans and monospace fonts are rendered by the corresponding liberation fonts (switch between the two and check that it is exactly the same). You can also try the ttf-ms-fonts (microsoft fonts) instead of the liberation fonts. But be aware that whatever you do, you won't reach the same quality as the current commercial OS (Win and MAcOS)

For myself, I prefer non antialiased fonts. To have a decent look with non antialiased font (this is the way WinXP and prior versions rendered fonts), you must install the Microsoft fonts and make some tweaks (many people do not like it, since the fonts are not smooth. But it gives sharper fonts that I think are easier to read).

Last edited by olive (2010-10-23 16:28:05)

brebs · 2010-10-24 01:21:56

olive wrote:

you won't reach the same quality as the current commercial OS

That's out-of-date info. See:

http://www.infinality.net/blog/
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-723341.html

olive · 2010-10-24 09:09:31

brebs wrote:

olive wrote:
you won't reach the same quality as the current commercial OS
That's out-of-date info. See:
http://www.infinality.net/blog/
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-723341.html

Windows with cleartype or MacosX produces really good result. From my experience, I can only reach the quality of Windows XP. I have not applied patches though... But please be a little more constructive. Could you post some screenshots, your fonts.conf, the patches you have applied. In the links you post, there is no convincing screenshot, and there a lot of people speaking of different patches.

Foucault · 2010-10-24 10:56:01

@adan: Your fonts look fine. If you feel comfortable then no reason to fret about it.

The problem, according to my experience, lies with the bold fonts. I've tried a lot of things, including freetype-infinality but it, somehow, does not look that right in any case. For example take a look at the following two samples.

Sample 1, from Firefox (stock freetype)
Sample 1, from Firefox (infinality)
The rendering of the bold text with infinality is, well, bad. I've tried to enable/disable the "Verdana" part of the infinality proposed .fonts.conf however it still does not look anywhere like good. Stock freetype produces more uniform transition between regular and bold font. For the regular font, however, I like infinality better (autohinting off in both cases, slight hinting).

Sample 2 (stock freetype)
Sample 2 (infinality)
Again with infinality the bold looks "wrong" (I don't know if this is the right word, but I think you understand me). Notice the difference in height between "e" and "a" on the line that says "Search results". The difference between bold and regular is smoother with the stock freetype. Again I tend to like the regular text rendering better with infinality (autohinting on, slight hinting).

There is really a mess with the font rendering in Linux, especially when it comes to bold fonts. And it is not just freetype. There are a ton of parameters to tune (freetype, cairo, xft, etc) with various degrees of subjective success. I've tried quite a few things the last years but nothing feels "right". The latest freetype is definitely better than older versions though. I can say that I almost like it.

brebs · 2010-10-24 11:51:34

olive wrote:

I have not applied patches though

So am I supposed to thank you for putting in no effort whatsoever?

But please be a little more constructive

See my multitude of postings to the Gentoo thread.

Could you post some screenshots

A circle on my 1920x1080 screen probably won't look like a circle on your god-knows-what times god-knows-what screen, so why do you think that fonts would look comparable?

your fonts.conf

See post.

the patches you have applied

See the thread. I posted my latest all-in-one to it yesterday. If you're not following that thread, then you're in the Dark Ages.

No rendering is perfect, but Infinality's is the best bet for the present and foreseeable future, mainly because it's in active development *now*.

Foucault, Infinality has a forum, and note his own fonts.conf

Mod edit: keep it civil please

Last edited by litemotiv (2010-10-24 12:04:26)

olive · 2010-10-24 14:16:04

brebs wrote:

A circle on my 1920x1080 screen probably won't look like a circle on your god-knows-what times god-knows-what screen, so why do you think that fonts would look comparable?

Assuming you have done the tuning on a LCD screen (which is probable) and as long as the image is rendered pixel for pixel (without rescaling it to the screen, thus), this is dubious. All LCD screen are made from the same technology. At least we might have a very good idea of what is achievable. Note that Windows is able to make very good optimization, knowing only that you have a LCD screen.

brebs · 2010-10-24 15:38:25

olive wrote:

without rescaling it to the screen

It's done *with*, not without. You want fontconfig/freetype to deliberately do a worse job?

$ xdpyinfo | grep -B1 dot
dimensions: 1920x1080 pixels (372x231 millimeters)
resolution: 131x119 dots per inch

So I repeat, a circle drawn on my screen will most likely not appear the same on someone else's screen.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-10-22 22:09:50

Are my fonts looking good?

#2 2010-10-22 23:06:07

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

#3 2010-10-22 23:06:14

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

#4 2010-10-22 23:26:24

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

#5 2010-10-23 15:24:40

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

#6 2010-10-23 16:20:44

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

#7 2010-10-24 01:21:56

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

#8 2010-10-24 09:09:31

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

#9 2010-10-24 10:56:01

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

#10 2010-10-24 11:51:34

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

#11 2010-10-24 14:16:04

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

#12 2010-10-24 15:38:25

Re: Are my fonts looking good?

Board footer