From: Trond Lossius ()
Date: May 14, 2008
Subject:
Re: Re: Max5 == Physical Pain
Hi Enola,
I guess I'm less concerned about suboptimal antialasing that you, but I
see that you have a point.
Reading the outline by David Z. on some of the core decisions behind the
development of Max5, it's fairly obvious that Juce is here to stay for
quite a while:
http://www.cycling74.com/story/2007/9/28/105551/882
So if you want to pick the fights you can win, I would suggest that you
contact the developer of Juce directly, and point these issues out to
him. If that leads to improved antialiasing in Juce, it will probably
eventually make its way into Max as well.
Best,
Trond
Enola wrote:
> I've made a comparison PNG of Verdana 10 between MS and JUCE.
> Note the following:
>
> - Proper text rendering is consistent. The L's in Microsoft 'lll' are antialiased identically. JUCE L's are blowing in the wind.
> - The emphasis of the center point of JUCE L's is not consistent; JUCE's first 'l' is closer to the b, while the other two l's are further right-centered on a subpixel level.
> - The bridge of MS 'e' is not destroyed. JUCE destroys the e and turns it into gray mud. I can't even make out the bridge, just mush.
> - Microsoft 'l's are indeed not a single pixel, and use padding on each side like JUCE. However, MS does it crisply and cleanly at any size.
> - JUCE has garbage pixels underneath the e's, b's, p's, and d's. JUCE's method doesn't take into consideration that in a font context, certain curve antialiasing creates noise. It just dumbly renders it as if it were graphics.
>
> - Enola
_______________________________________________
maxmsp mailing list [EMAIL REMOVED] http://www.cycling74.com/mailman/listinfo/maxmsp