Improved Charis SIL with smallcaps - Page 5

JSWolf · 07-05-2016, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kleinjar

ChareInkTest: Bold text looks great now.
Regular text looks sharper than the previous version (I suppose because of the added hinting?) but the regular text has a bit of irregularity at small sizes. It’s subtle but a bit disconcerting.
The diagonal stroke in the middle of the small “a”, for instance, looks to be twice as thick as the bottom stroke. The curve of the small "d" also looks irregular.

Have you tried any of the newer versions and did they fix your problem?

jbacelar · 07-05-2016, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

the descenders look good to go.

Yes it is.
Now everything is correct.

JSWolf · 07-06-2016, 04:55 AM

I've noticed that there is a discrepancy between the number of downloads for the hinted version vs. the non-hinted version. I know there have been some people saying that hinting is not good and they are 100% wrong. Proper hinting (like we have here) is not a problem. It does not cause an issue. You really do need to try both to decide which looks better to you. If you don't, you could be using the non-hinted version when the hinted version could be better.

But you really should try the hinted version just to show that hinting is not a problem as some mistakenly say.

svenlind · 07-06-2016, 05:40 AM

I tried both version, and they look good. I think I prefer the nonhinted version.

It is a marvelous font for my Kindle Voyage, it can now compete in text rendering with my Kobo Glo HD. (Well not in selecting font size)

Thank You very much.

doubleshuffle · 07-06-2016, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've noticed that there is a discrepancy between the number of downloads for the hinted version vs. the non-hinted version. I know there have been some people saying that hinting is not good and they are 100% wrong. Proper hinting (like we have here) is not a problem. It does not cause an issue. You really do need to try both to decide which looks better to you. If you don't, you could be using the non-hinted version when the hinted version could be better.

But you really should try the hinted version just to show that hinting is not a problem as some mistakenly say.

Just to reassure you: I did download and test both versions. The difference on my Aura HD is minimal. My impression was that the non-hinted version is a bit crisper, as I have stated before, but I am not sure that I could tell the two versions apart in an A/B test.

roger64 · 07-06-2016, 06:06 AM

Hi

Reading all these above comments, could someone explain -shortly- why non-hinted versions can be (nearly) as good or even better than hinted ones?

I presume that providing hinting instructions is a huge task. It also makes the font heavier. But maybe it can guarantee consistent results over many platforms, while non-hinted versions can sometimes be excellent on platform A but less good on platform B.

My guess is that the viewer software (or the machine software?) takes charge of this task but beyond this guess, it's really hazy... I just tested it on Koreader on a PW3. Which one of the two must I thank for this excellent rendering (I already said thanks to JSWolf) ?

JSWolf · 07-06-2016, 06:52 AM

If anyone runs Windows, use Windows Font Viewer to view the hinted and non-hinted fonts. Take a look at the two smallest sizes. You will notice that the hinted version looks better at the smaller sizes. At the larger sizes, the difference is not all that great or not noticeable.

So try comparing using small sizes to see what you think and go with what you prefer.

Terisa de morgan · 07-06-2016, 07:06 AM

With Windows Font Viewer I like better the hinted version (I use small fonts). I have to test it at my eReader, because the modified fonts are usually too bold for me (I use Georgia at Kobo Aura).

GERGE · 07-06-2016, 07:29 AM

Of course hinted glyphs would look better on Windows. Windows screens are why font hinting was invented. But they would not on eInk. Directly from Wikipedia; font hinting is the use of mathematical instructions to adjust the display of an outline font so that it lines up with a rasterized grid.

The key word here is rasterized grid. This means geometrically aligned pixels of a computer (or smartphone) screen. All pixels are on the same lines on those screens, like boxes perfectly distributed. But electronic paper isn't created so. While it has geometrically aligned pixels, they are not used to show us the glyphs on the screen. The image is rendered between them haphazardly. This image show it:

The text on screen is created by the black and white dots you see here. This macro of a Kindle explains it better than words:

So, in effect, there are no rasterized grid in epaper that font hinting could understand. Hinting depends on rasterized grids, epaper doesn't have it. Moreover, hinting is a massive job to do properly. I greatly doubt that JSWolf spend months hand-hinting this type. And if he did, it was an exercise in futility. Sorry about that.

Hinting is also not that usable in high-ppi screens (http://blog.typekit.com/2013/05/01/hi-dpi-typography/). The reason hinting exists is to make type look good at low resolutions screens. eInk isn't low resolution anymore, and more importantly, it isn't geometrically aligned when you look at it from outside. There is no way hinting could be useful, and there absolutely no way autohinting (which works on an assumption of an usual computer screen) can work at all. It might not make things worse, but it definitely can't make things better. It is impossible.

JSWolf, if you are going to keep claiming that I am wrong, I expect something more than just you saying it works better. Explain why it works, please.

JSWolf · 07-06-2016, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

With Windows Font Viewer I like better the hinted version (I use small fonts). I have to test it at my eReader, because the modified fonts are usually too bold for me (I use Georgia at Kobo Aura).

If you find this too weighted for you, let me know and I'll put up an unweghted version for Kobo Readers using the Advanced Font Control patch.

Terisa de morgan · 07-06-2016, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If you find this too weighted for you, let me know and I'll put up an unweghted version for Kobo Readers using the Advanced Font Control patch.

I like this font (non-hint, checked both), but it's a bit too weighted for me, yes. How does that patch work?

JSWolf · 07-06-2016, 05:16 PM

Here are a couple of screen shots from my H2O. Th first image is hinted and the second is not hinted.

JSWolf · 07-06-2016, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

I like this font (non-hint, checked both), but it's a bit too weighted for me, yes. How does that patch work?

The patch enables Advanced Font Control for side loaded TrueType (.ttf) fonts so you can increase or decrease the weight as you see fit.

Terisa de morgan · 07-06-2016, 05:54 PM

It's Ok for me, another patch for my Kobo

I'm liking this font, thank you

JSWolf · 07-06-2016, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

It's Ok for me, another patch for my Kobo

I'm liking this font, thank you

Here is the current version of the test font but with no added weight and no hinting. With the patch, you can adjust as you want.

P.S. I've removed the attachments and have added them later on in this thread.

07-06-2016, 06:06 AM	#66
roger64 Wizard Posts: 2,608 Karma: 3000161 Join Date: Jan 2009 Device: Kindle PW3 (wifi)	Hi Reading all these above comments, could someone explain -shortly- why non-hinted versions can be (nearly) as good or even better than hinted ones? I presume that providing hinting instructions is a huge task. It also makes the font heavier. But maybe it can guarantee consistent results over many platforms, while non-hinted versions can sometimes be excellent on platform A but less good on platform B. My guess is that the viewer software (or the machine software?) takes charge of this task but beyond this guess, it's really hazy... I just tested it on Koreader on a PW3. Which one of the two must I thank for this excellent rendering (I already said thanks to JSWolf) ? Last edited by roger64; 07-06-2016 at 06:13 AM.

07-06-2016, 07:29 AM	#69
GERGE Guru Posts: 733 Karma: 5797160 Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Istanbul Device: Kobo Libra	Of course hinted glyphs would look better on Windows. Windows screens are why font hinting was invented. But they would not on eInk. Directly from Wikipedia; font hinting is the use of mathematical instructions to adjust the display of an outline font so that it lines up with a rasterized grid. The key word here is rasterized grid. This means geometrically aligned pixels of a computer (or smartphone) screen. All pixels are on the same lines on those screens, like boxes perfectly distributed. But electronic paper isn't created so. While it has geometrically aligned pixels, they are not used to show us the glyphs on the screen. The image is rendered between them haphazardly. This image show it: The text on screen is created by the black and white dots you see here. This macro of a Kindle explains it better than words: So, in effect, there are no rasterized grid in epaper that font hinting could understand. Hinting depends on rasterized grids, epaper doesn't have it. Moreover, hinting is a massive job to do properly. I greatly doubt that JSWolf spend months hand-hinting this type. And if he did, it was an exercise in futility. Sorry about that. Hinting is also not that usable in high-ppi screens (http://blog.typekit.com/2013/05/01/hi-dpi-typography/). The reason hinting exists is to make type look good at low resolutions screens. eInk isn't low resolution anymore, and more importantly, it isn't geometrically aligned when you look at it from outside. There is no way hinting could be useful, and there absolutely no way autohinting (which works on an assumption of an usual computer screen) can work at all. It might not make things worse, but it definitely can't make things better. It is impossible. JSWolf, if you are going to keep claiming that I am wrong, I expect something more than just you saying it works better. Explain why it works, please. Last edited by GERGE; 07-06-2016 at 07:33 AM.

07-06-2016, 05:16 PM	#72
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 76,354 Karma: 136006010 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	Here are a couple of screen shots from my H2O. Th first image is hinted and the second is not hinted. Attached Thumbnails Last edited by JSWolf; 07-06-2016 at 05:57 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
smallcaps how to?	JSWolf	ePub	20	06-02-2016 03:40 PM
loss if italics and smallcaps when converting epub to mobi	franklekens	Calibre	4	01-22-2012 03:34 PM
What part of the CSS can cause this? (smallcaps related in Sigil)	mtrahan	ePub	15	06-01-2011 10:24 AM
Charis font not being displayed	Canorka	Kobo Reader	0	03-25-2011 11:02 PM
Smallcaps in Kindle	cscotts	Kindle Formats	5	01-26-2011 10:52 AM

07-06-2016, 04:55 AM	#63
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 76,354 Karma: 136006010 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	I've noticed that there is a discrepancy between the number of downloads for the hinted version vs. the non-hinted version. I know there have been some people saying that hinting is not good and they are 100% wrong. Proper hinting (like we have here) is not a problem. It does not cause an issue. You really do need to try both to decide which looks better to you. If you don't, you could be using the non-hinted version when the hinted version could be better. But you really should try the hinted version just to show that hinting is not a problem as some mistakenly say.

07-06-2016, 05:40 AM	#64
svenlind Fanatic Posts: 517 Karma: 10491195 Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Denmark Device: Oasis 3, Kobo Sage and Libra 2,Ipad mini 5	I tried both version, and they look good. I think I prefer the nonhinted version. It is a marvelous font for my Kindle Voyage, it can now compete in text rendering with my Kobo Glo HD. (Well not in selecting font size) Thank You very much.

07-06-2016, 06:52 AM	#67
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 76,354 Karma: 136006010 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	If anyone runs Windows, use Windows Font Viewer to view the hinted and non-hinted fonts. Take a look at the two smallest sizes. You will notice that the hinted version looks better at the smaller sizes. At the larger sizes, the difference is not all that great or not noticeable. So try comparing using small sizes to see what you think and go with what you prefer.

07-06-2016, 07:06 AM	#68
Terisa de morgan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 6,388 Karma: 12117217 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Device: Kobo Clara/Aura One/Forma,XiaoMI 5, iPad, Huawei MediaPad, YotaPhone 2	With Windows Font Viewer I like better the hinted version (I use small fonts). I have to test it at my eReader, because the modified fonts are usually too bold for me (I use Georgia at Kobo Aura).

07-06-2016, 05:54 PM	#74
Terisa de morgan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 6,388 Karma: 12117217 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Device: Kobo Clara/Aura One/Forma,XiaoMI 5, iPad, Huawei MediaPad, YotaPhone 2	It's Ok for me, another patch for my Kobo I'm liking this font, thank you

Advert

Advert