From 3a5caacaaeb520184f7d8a2b392fc2589780c678 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: nothings Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 23:50:34 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Update README.md --- tests/oversample/README.md | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/oversample/README.md b/tests/oversample/README.md index 83018e7..adcd872 100644 --- a/tests/oversample/README.md +++ b/tests/oversample/README.md @@ -79,13 +79,16 @@ this doesn't like a very good way for fonts to work. Multiple people who have experimented with this independently (me, Fabian Giesen,and Maxim Shemanarev of Anti-Grain Geometry) have all concluded that correct gamma-correction does not produce the best -results for fonts. font rendering just generally looks better without -gamma correction (or probably with some arbitrary power stuck in +results for fonts. Font rendering just generally looks better without +gamma correction (or possibly with some arbitrary power stuck in there, but it's not really correcting for gamma at that point). Maybe this is in part a product of how we're used to fonts being on screens which has changed how we expect them to look (e.g. perhaps hinting oversharpens them and prevents the real-world thinning you'd see in a black-on-white text). +(AGG link on text rendering, including mention of gamma: + http://www.antigrain.com/research/font_rasterization/ ) + Nevertheless, even if you turn on gamma-correction, you will find that oversampling still helps in many cases for small fonts.