4 ms·
It's a bitmap font, so it scales as any pixels would but far from well when it comes to readability. If you look at the 1600% up-scale you get a good idea what
by romland 17y ago
It's a bitmap font, so it scales as any pixels would but far from well when it comes to readability. If you look at the 1600% up-scale you get a good idea what I am talking about.
I remember making these types of fonts myself back in the Amiga days just to fit it on bootsector(s) (memory fails me here, was it one or two?). The difference then was that sub pixel rendering was not an option, and fixed width fonts at this size always looked bad (i vs m), so you'd have to be careful how you wrote things. :-)
Without having ever experimented with subpixel rendering I am intrigued by the fact that « is made a whole lot more "blue" than » -- spontaneously one would think it would simply be a matter of mirroring the glyphs (obviously not) :)
- ComputerGuru 17y agoThe subpixels are RGB in that order. So the heavier "image concentration" on the right side means there'd be more blue.
- thristian 17y agoIf you want to experiment with subpixel rendering, and you have a reasonably modern Firefox, I made a subpixel-rendering toy a while ago: http://zork.net/~st/Toys/subpixel-sketch.html http://zork.net/~st/Toys/subpixel-sketch.html If you don't have a modern Firefox, there's a screenshot here: http://zork.net/~st/Toys/subpixel-sketch.png http://zork.net/~st/Toys/subpixel-sketch.png
- PebblesRox 17y agoThat's neat, but I wish I could click and drag to change multiple pixels at once, instead of clicking and clicking and clicking.