On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 11:38:46AM +1100, Daniel Robert Franklin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 October 2001 05:48, Daniel Robert Franklin wrote:
> > > So, in short, if you actually want to see the font, as opposed to a
> > > bunch of artifacts, you need to use anti-aliasing. Don't mistake
> > > smoothness for blurring.
> > That was some nice explanation. Anti-aliasing is something you ought to
> > integrate in any display system, or you will have jagged edges. Thus,
> > some of the hype associated with Mac OS X's Carbon.
> Definitely. OSX takes it one step further though, although I don't think
> it takes it far enough. My personal preference would be the total
> elimination of the "pixel" as a concept for user-interface design, rather
> to have everything in terms of vectors, geometric lines etc, then use a
> simple rendering engine to sample that and turn it into pixels. Then you
Actually, that's what X does (most of the time anyway). There are of course
bitmap fonts (the 'fixed' font, for example) that are treated as a bitmap
font, but the windowing system, and most of the rest of X11 primitives are
treated as vectors.
That's why remote X11 over low bandwidth is possible at all - you don't
need to do a screenshot every 1/2 second (like e.g. Norton Anywhere does
with Windows).
> etc. I don't know if the WIMP paradigm would still work in that
> environment, but it certainly would be interesting to find out, or to
> develop something better :)
Maybe you want to try out 3dwm, it's a window manager that is based on the
assumption that 2D displays will be gone in a couple years. ;)
> > I'd always thought anti-aliasing was simply resampling, tho'.
> similar to sampling an analog signal. Accurately changing the sample rate
> to something which is not 1/N (N being an integer) (e.g. from 600 to 83
> dpi) requires upsampling and then downsampling - but you still need to
> filter.
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3519061406/hitchhikers-21
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/351916180X/hitchhikers-21
My bibles (among others) :-)
> > Which means there is actually some blending but not blurring, most
> > algorithms are careful enough not to degrade image quality. On the
> > other hand, the end result varies since there are different algorithms.
> Yes. The precise digital filter used can be of many different designs,
> but all are imperfect (a digital filter would need to be infinitely long
> for it to be perfect). You will always get some aliasing but it should be
> much less than with no filter (hopefully below the threshold of
> perception).
Yep.
> Forgive me for rabbiting on, as a DSP-obsessed electrical engineer, it's
> a subject which is close to my heart :)
Welcome to the team. ;)
--
Jens Benecke ········ http://www.hitchhikers.de/ - Europas Mitfahrzentrale
· . ·
· · . · . · <-------- verdächtiges weisses Puder
· . · . .
· ·
Attachment:
pgp8ZLvmHZhIG.pgp
Description: PGP signature