[Development] about the Cocoa/Freetype fontengine

[Jean-Michaël Celerier]

> And even then ... how many users complained about window titles looking
blurry when KWin started using QtQuick for rendering titlebars?

isn't this a common complaint actually :
https://www.google.com/search?q=qt+quick+blurry+text ?

But I think that the overall problem is that there are two categories of
software built with Qt :
* apps that integrates with their user's desktop
* apps that look the same everywhere.

In my case I am for instance sometimes developing small UI software with
some buttons, list, etc... and in this case I want the app to integrate
nicely and blend in whatever the OS and the color scheme of the user of the
software.
But the main app I work on is a music software for artists ; these
generally have a *very strong* visual identity. We use our own CSS with
fusion style everywhere with custom fonts, pixmaps, etc etc... and the
software *has* to look the same (as in, pixel-perfect) on every platform
(given same DPI of course). I honestly don't care much about the software
integrating with the host environment; just take a look at famous software
in this category:

* Max/MSP: https://docs.cycling74.com/max7/vignettes/images/project-edit.png
* Ableton Live:
https://img.audiofanzine.com/images/u/product/normal/ableton-live-9-suite-163826.jpg
* TouchDesigner:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8531/8680998191_df78973538_b.jpg
* Sonar: https://medias.audiofanzine.com/images/normal/710664.jpg
* AudioMulch: https://static.kvraudio.com/i/b/audiomulch2-2.jpg

etc... in this case it's a good thing to pop out from other software on
your desktop (for very practical reasons, too: when you're on stage
performing a show you don't want to spend time finding where is the window
you have to click on, they all have to appear very distinct if you have
multiple software running)


Best,
-------
Jean-Michaël Celerier
http://www.jcelerier.name

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 1:45 PM, René J. V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Nikolaus Waxweiler wrote:
>
> > I think you have to carefully match the rendering of CoreText (and its'
> > darkening algorithm) for users not to notice. At that point, you might
> > as well use CoreText, unless you have something very specific in mind.
>
> Remember that there's also the issue of getting the exact same font metrics
> which is important for certain users.
>
> > People notice different font rendering.
>
> Yes - but they're not likely to complain if the different look also looks
> better. And even then ... how many users complained about window titles
> looking
> blurry when KWin started using QtQuick for rendering titlebars?
>
> > The performance hit is measurable in the rendering benchmark tool
>
> Measurable in a benchmark tool doesn't mean there are performance issues.
> I've
> been using Infinality on a very slow system, without any ill effects.
>
> > consistency. Sit a Core Web font next to some random Google Font font on
> > the internet and they'll look jarringly different, like each used a
>
> If you mean fonts rendered by FreeType with and without Infinality looks
> jarringly different, then yes, that can be the case at regular point sizes
> on
> regular density displays. Which is the whole point: with the result looks
> jarringly better.
>
> > No, incorrectly hits the mark. As soon as your rendered glyph image
> > contains shades of gray, you MUST use linear alpha blending and gamma
> > correction. Everything else is incorrect.
> > The Windows and Mac platform
> > have been doing that for decades, X11 libs never did to my knowledge.
>
> Erm, I'm talking about KDE desktops using Qt4 or better, which have the
> option
> to activate sub-pixel rendering and hinting (which will be on by default
> IIRC).
> Basic X11 font rendering doesn't, indeed. Instead it relied on pre-rendered
> bitmap fonts like for a high-resolution matrix printer. And curiously those
> fonts could be displayed 100% correct - with moiré effects and blurring
> between
> the display phosphor and our retina taking care of making the letters look
> smooth enough to be pleasant. I still use some fonts like that (Monaco in
> particular) in my xterms, that I've been preserving from my PhD days on a
> Mac
> IIx running A/UX 2.0 .
>
> Either way, a long as we're talking about vector fonts rendered on a raster
> display the term correct has a very relative meaning.
>
> > The CFF darkener delivers the best
> > looking results so far, as it only counters the thinning such that the
> > font looks as meaty as before gamma correction.
>
> Again, that's in the eye of the beholder, but I still find that the
> results look
> better with than without the Infinality patch set. The only regression
> (due to
> your CFF darkener or to the FT+FC patches) is in a single font family so
> far,
> which looks washed out with the default gamma correction. That's actually
> due to
> something in the FontConfig "Ultimate" patch or tweaked config files.
> I have no idea if those are CFF fonts and can't find a reference to the
> family in
> the .conf files either.
>
> > (just look at all the fixing Infinality has to do; hinting can be a very
> > seat-of-the-pants business)
>
> It is, inevitably. It's aimed at fooling human perception and as such
> cannot be
> an exact science (unless you're a biologist or "assimilated"
> neuroscientist :)).
>
> Anyway, whether or not "we" use Infinality is not Qt's business. Or
> rather, it's
> not up to Qt to tell us what we should consider to look better and then
> take
> steps to make it impossible to use that patch set.
>
> The issue at hand here is whether or not Qt should/could allow users to
> use font
> rendering based on FreeType+FontConfig across the main platforms, with as
> the
> main argument the fact that this will allow (near) perfect cross-platform
> homogeneity in text rendering. The default should evidently be to use the
> platform native font engine (but it'd be nice if there were at least an
> env.
> variable for users to select their preferred engine and/or a way to do so
> via
> e.g. a platform theme plugin like the plasma-integration plugin or my
> github:RJVB/osx-integration.git).
>
> I've posted a few side-by-side comparisons:
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-65510
>
> >> I probably would if I knew how.
> >
> > export FREETYPE_PROPERTIES=cff:no-stem-darkening=1
>
> I see absolutely no difference between the two. Maybe simply because I'm
> not
> using any CFF fonts.
>
> R.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20171230/26f77ff8/attachment.html>