This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is hinting? edit
This piece doesn't clearly say what hinting is, only what it does and why it is used. 203.33.3.12 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment edit
Human Readers? As opposed to......? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.207.3 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- OCR and other machine reading algorithms. Svyatoslav (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
PostScript edit
The article doesn't mention PostScript fonts, but talks as if font hinting is a feature only found in TrueType fonts. AFAIK this is wrong.--Oneiros (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Antialiasing edit
I think the example illustration would be much clearer if it weren't also antialiased. i.e. show non-antialiased/non-hinted vs non-antialiased/hinted. It's also worth going through the 4 permutations (on a small display):
- non-antialiased, non-hinted → usually horrible, looks "spidery" (except for bitmap fonts at native resolution)
- antialiased, non-hinted → marginal improvement on antialiased/non-hinted.
- non-antialiased, hinted → very sharp and clear, but unfaithful to the glyph outlines. Some people (including myself) find this most readable.
- antialiased, hinted → clear and smooth. Most people prefer this look, but some find it makes the fonts look blurry and hard to focus on, resulting in eye-strain.
- subpixel-rendering increases smoothness (making hinting less necessary), but adds colour-fringing, which some viewers dislike.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. As the previous section also says, this article seems to only consider TrueType hinting without antialiasing. The situation is confused by the articles Subpixel rendering and especially Font rasterization. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)