|
|
Posted by SpaceGirl on 08/03/07 10:15
On Aug 3, 5:59 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
productions.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:29:17 +0100, Toby A Inkster
>
> <usenet200...@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
> >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.
>
> ...wow...just...WOW!
>
> I mean, do you even comprehend...at all, just how entirely fucking
> stupid you just made yourself look? I mean...is it clickin at all for
> you? Do you have ANY idea?
Toby is completely right... but so are you :) It doesn't matter if a
font is vector or not when it is very small; ultimately there are only
so many pixels on the physical display so at some point the font will
become unreadable. On the other hand, if you are working on a platform
that is totally resolution independent (Flash, Vista, OSX) then it's
really important that you are using vector fonts as you have no idea
just the "size" of the display.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|