Glynn Clements wrote: > If you start from the fact that hand-crafted bitmaps are more legible > than rasterised vectors Perhaps in principle on low-res displays, but given the advent of effective-res-enhancing subpixel-rendering-to-ordered-displays for that to be true in practice even on current ca. 100DPI displays you'd need something like amiga colorfonts [1] to allow you to hand-craft individual subpixels, or at least 1-bit bitmaps drawn in 3:1 [2] aspect ratio [3], to match the legibility of hinted vector fonts. And while very high-res displays could perhaps mean subpixel rendering or antialiasing is not worth bothering with (though if you have the today-typical oodles of processing power and the code already written, might as well), when we have e-paper displays at hundreds of DPI (_already appearing_, will presumably only get better assuming continued lack of apocalypse), handcrafted bitmap fonts and lack of resolution independence are getting less and less practical or desirable. [1] bitmap fonts not limited to 1-bit bitmaps* [2] or maybe 2:1 for that "sublcd" green/magenta perceptual subpixel scheme [3] of course assuming square pixels split into ||| subpixels, also not necessarily valid assumptions... * Caffeine meandering: vector colorfonts? Seems like they'd be useful/fun for obnoxious wordart/presentations and video titling. Is there any provision for color vector data in any vector font formats? It's obvious there _could_ be, of course. Though I guess modern video titling might use 3D models for glyphs for the most part though... _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg