I'm not sure this is the same thing, but I know that when trying to get my computer's fonts to look the same in Windows and Linux something always felt sort of off. A couple years ago I read that the font rasterization library (I'm not sure that's what it's called, but it's the software that generates the bitmaps for the letters from the font information) that I was using for Linux had disabled the subpixel rendering functionality that helps account for this effect because the method it used was patented by Microsoft. I thought that was kind of interesting. Also, I guess it's a slightly different problem (rasterizing the font for a bitmap instead of for pixels on the screen) but I was wondering how those libraries that generate the bitmaps for fonts work -- I assume the rasterization rules are potentially more complex than say the diamond rule mentioned in the later slides?
tib
It was very cool to learn that displays of text also came in rendering algorithms, where lines are computed through rasterization. This thought never hit me in the past.
Arthas007
I am glad for not seeing these pixels closely. They're rough and eye hurting. Nowadays we get much higher resolution which nearly cancel the rasterization-approximation effect
jlessioh
I did not realize how rough pixels look close up, as I always looked at screens from a reasonable distance. This is a cool demonstration of the difference between what we attempt to display and reality.
I'm not sure this is the same thing, but I know that when trying to get my computer's fonts to look the same in Windows and Linux something always felt sort of off. A couple years ago I read that the font rasterization library (I'm not sure that's what it's called, but it's the software that generates the bitmaps for the letters from the font information) that I was using for Linux had disabled the subpixel rendering functionality that helps account for this effect because the method it used was patented by Microsoft. I thought that was kind of interesting. Also, I guess it's a slightly different problem (rasterizing the font for a bitmap instead of for pixels on the screen) but I was wondering how those libraries that generate the bitmaps for fonts work -- I assume the rasterization rules are potentially more complex than say the diamond rule mentioned in the later slides?
It was very cool to learn that displays of text also came in rendering algorithms, where lines are computed through rasterization. This thought never hit me in the past.
I am glad for not seeing these pixels closely. They're rough and eye hurting. Nowadays we get much higher resolution which nearly cancel the rasterization-approximation effect
I did not realize how rough pixels look close up, as I always looked at screens from a reasonable distance. This is a cool demonstration of the difference between what we attempt to display and reality.