|
|
Posted by Toby A Inkster on 08/02/07 18:29
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
>>No -- it's quite sensible. 8px text at 640x480 pixels is exactly the same
>>physical height as 16px text at 1280x960 pixels, but the 16px text looks a
>>lot better: the extra pixels allow the curves to be smoother.
>
> Actually, no, you're completely and totally WRONG on that point since
> most system fonts are VECTOR BASED, true type fonts, which are
> anti-aliased you fucking retard.
The fact that most fonts are vector-based and anti-aliased has got nothing
to do with it. It comes from the fact that a pixel can only ever be one
colour[1]. Say you're trying to draw a serif capital letter E at 10 pixels
high and 6 pixels wide, how do you do it?
*XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XX *
XX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XX *
XXXXXX
*XXXXXX
(We have anti-aliasing, so X = black, * = grey)
Easy. Now what if you have to do it at 5 by 3?
XXX
X
XXX
X
XXX
Now what about 4 by 2?
XX
X*
X*
XX
It's no longer recognisable as an E: it's become too pixelated to read.
This is why high res + large fonts looks nicer than low res and small
fonts. This is why high res exists!
Demonstration:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/garamond-sizes
____
1. Yes, I do know about subpixel rendering, but this only works on some
monitors, and it only goes a small way to improving things.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 42 days, 21:49.]
Open Mobile Alliance DTD Oops!
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/08/02/xhtml-mobile-oops/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|