[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
anti-aliasing (also called smoothing)
> In any case, I'm not talking
> about anti-aliased rendering
On the Mac and the Next machines, it seems to me that users
prefer Adobe's ATM B/W rasterizer used *without* anti-aliasing.
The first acceptable anti-aliasing on the Mac is in Adobe's
Acrobat reader Version 3 of late 1997.
I suspect Adobe's low-level intervention was required. As you
indicated, if one looks at Textures' earlier attempt the
letters are not black enough --- the image is "washed out".
Reason? I observe that original ATM's hinting tended to make
the B-to-W ratio well below the ideal value of the outlines
through the range of sizes currently used on screens. That was
a consequence of wanting smooth edges. Also, when Adobe's
Acrobat is used without anti-aliasing the bitmaps are heavier
and more rugged than for Textures. But Textures excels with
simple B/W (ie. in the absence of anti-aliasing) --- and it
excels in both speed and quality. (OzTeX and Direct TeX are
catching up gradually.)
If you are right that, at *equal resolution* (pixels per em),
the Next type1 rasterizer gives better quality in B/W than the
Mac with Textures Reader, then you do have something to boast