Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Request: Text Rendering as in SubEthaEdit

Expand Messages
  • Nico Weber
    ... I asked David for them, and he sent them to me. Here they are: http://amnoid.de/tmp/SubEthaEdit%20enabled%20screen%20fonts.png
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      >> Yeah, that must be what's going on. I took a more careful look, and I
      >> agree that there is very little difference in the antialiasing
      >> between
      >> the two samples. The character spacing makes the difference in
      >> readability.
      >
      > Can you post the screenshots to this list or provide a link where we
      > can all take a look at them?

      I asked David for them, and he sent them to me. Here they are:

      http://amnoid.de/tmp/SubEthaEdit%20enabled%20screen%20fonts.png
      http://amnoid.de/tmp/SubEthaEdit%20disabled%20screen%20fonts.png

      To me, the difference is not just character spacing: in the screen
      fonts-enabled screenshot, the characters seem to be more aligned with
      pixel lines and are thus often less "colorful" (they are colored at
      all because of os x's subpixel antialiasing). For example, see the
      left edge of the "U" in line 3 or the "E" in line 5.

      Nico

      --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
      You received this message from the "vim_mac" maillist.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    • björn
      ... I can t really see that much of a difference apart from the spacing. The fact that the character spacing changes seems to make the most difference. To
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        2009/1/4 Nico Weber <nicolasweber@...>:
        >
        > To me, the difference is not just character spacing: in the screen
        > fonts-enabled screenshot, the characters seem to be more aligned with
        > pixel lines and are thus often less "colorful" (they are colored at
        > all because of os x's subpixel antialiasing). For example, see the
        > left edge of the "U" in line 3 or the "E" in line 5.

        I can't really see that much of a difference apart from the spacing.
        The fact that the character spacing changes seems to make the most
        difference. To test what it would look like in MacVim I did the
        following:

        a. disable screen fonts
        b. disable fixed character advances

        The result were these

        (1) http://bjorn.winckler.googlepages.com/NO-ScreenFonts.png
        (2) http://bjorn.winckler.googlepages.com/ScreenFonts.png
        (3) http://bjorn.winckler.googlepages.com/ScreenFonts-VariableCharWidth.png

        In (1) I've used the default settings with "gfn=DejaVuSansMono:h9".
        Then I disabled screen fonts in (2), and finally I disabled both
        screen fonts as well as fixed character advances in (3).

        I can't see any difference between (1) and (2). Note that (3) fails
        to fit the window because the character advances are not what MacVim
        thinks they should be. There isn't much to do about this
        unfortunately (because all of Vim is built around the assumption that
        every character has the same width), so this style of rendering won't
        work even though it may look more pleasing.

        To conclude, (with the above font) disabling screen fonts seem to make
        no difference (to me at least) -- the big difference is seen when
        Cocoa is allowed to use variable character advances.

        Björn

        --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
        You received this message from the "vim_mac" maillist.
        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
        -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.