Sat 06 Apr 2013 07:44:33 AM UTC, comment #3:
OK, you have compiled FreeType without subpixel support. However, the Windows rendering results in your images are certainly with subpixel rendering. Try to activate subpixel rendering in FreeType, and you get much improved results. But this is something different...
I've tested older FreeType versions, and they all have problems with glyph `q' at 17ppem, so even if 2.4.10 (without subpixel support) delivers better results than 2.4.11, it's far from good rendering.
This font is very old. Looking at the `name' record table, I see that it has a field `Version 001.005'. I thus suspect it has been automatically converted from a PostScript font. (BTW, search for `MicrogrammaD-MediExte.otf' to get a CFF version.)
On the page
http://ttfonts.net/font/25345_MicrogrammaDMedExt.htm
you can also see a waterfall; it looks like it has been generated with Windows, since the rendering results differ from FreeType. Interestingly, it exhibits similar rendering issues.
Since FreeType is using Windows as the reference implementation, it would be most helpful if you can provide a waterfall image generated on Windows without subpixel hinting (this is, with ClearType switched off). I have no idea whether this is possible at all with recent Windows versions...
Alternatively, rendering of this font using an old MacOS version (not OS X) would probably even better; given that the font contains the Apple glyph I think that the target was a Mac computer. Old Mac fonts are not well supported in FreeType; some details in the TrueType specification are not compatible with Windows. This is probably another reason why this font looks so awful.
|