Quoting Paride Legovini (2015-09-04 10:31:10) > On 2015-09-04 00:49, Norbert Preining wrote: >>> Check the two attached files, it's apparent that otf version gives a >>> result that is by far worse. Check especially the bold 'm' letter, >>> the dollar symbol and the dot inside of the '0' character. >> >> Hi everyone. Just one code point: I have installed the OTF fonts >> (outside packaging) and have them running in roxterm, and I don't see >> the artefacts that are indeed clearly visible in the screenshots. > > I will investigate and report back, but I'm quite sure that I didn't > change anything relevant in my font configuration. > > I have a couple of questions that might help. > > Do the ttf/otf fonts look identical to you, or you don't get the > artifacts but the fonts do differ? I get similar differences as you when I use the font with sakura. (For console use I prefer fast rendering and low memory footprint, so use xfonts-terminus with rxvt-unicode-lite). Attached are ghostscript renderings of the two main fonts using this command: printf '%%!PS\n(/usr/share/ghostscript/9.16/lib/prfont.ps) run\n/Hack DoFont\n' | gs -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sOutputFile=Hack.pdf - I cannot see any difference (command is relatively noisy and I checked that it loaded the correct font file). A quick sample in XeLaTeX also didn't show differences. > Are you using native hinting or autohinting? I believe the hinters are relevant for screen rendering only. I still recommend to package both Truetype and Opentype fonts - and also web fonts, since upstream provides those as well. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
Hack.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
Hack.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature