Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-flex-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-flex-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 22E0B108A1 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 37629 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2013 22:17:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-flex-users-archive@flex.apache.org Received: (qmail 37119 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2013 22:17:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@flex.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@flex.apache.org Received: (qmail 37086 invoked by uid 99); 21 Oct 2013 22:16:53 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:16:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.2 required=5.0 tests=FRT_ADOBE2,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of miguel.cd.ferreira@hotmail.com designates 157.55.0.217 as permitted sender) Received: from [157.55.0.217] (HELO dub0-omc1-s18.dub0.hotmail.com) (157.55.0.217) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:16:46 +0000 Received: from DUB404-EAS169 ([157.55.0.239]) by dub0-omc1-s18.dub0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:16:25 -0700 X-TMN: [z6uPFiPX5ptL/F9I6Ksc76zCc5lrAjhE] X-Originating-Email: [miguel.cd.ferreira@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_59515d96-0f9b-4acf-943e-db3dc69f80f2_" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "users@flex.apache.org" From: Miguel Ferreira Subject: RE: Different Font result when using embed and not Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:14:59 +0200 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2013 22:16:25.0672 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E974C80:01CECEAB] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --_59515d96-0f9b-4acf-943e-db3dc69f80f2_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I made also with otf sans source from Adobe. The result was the same=2C whe= n embedded is worse. Cff is compact font format from what i learn this week= i think that otf or ttf will be converted or better=2C compacted to reduce= size so by using the term embed as cff=2C That will embed that font using = a algorithm that will reduce the size of the embed font (maybe like the wof= f - web font format)? @ Alex=2C there is someone there in the adobe that can give more info? I al= so tried to go back for flash 10.2 as you suggest and then i read in a blog= but the result is the same. Miguel Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Alex Harui Sent: =E2=80=8E21.=E2=80=8E10.=E2=80=8E2013 23:59 To: users@flex.apache.org=3B dev@flex.apache.= org Subject: Re: Different Font result when using embed and not Device font rendering is not guaranteed across platforms. On Mac=2C for ex= ample=2C the glyphs may be taller or wider than they are on Windows which c= an affect the word-wrapping. Anti-aliasing is affected by ControlPanel s= ettings on Windows. If that's ok with you=2C you'll save on SWF size and r= endering time. If not=2C you need to choose embedded fonts. The algorithm in the more rec= ent players is not universally considered to be better=2C but again=2C a te= st needs to be done with an embedded CFF font=2C not a font with glyphs fro= m TTF. -Alex From: Miguel Ferreira > Reply-To: "users@flex.apache.org" > Date: Monday=2C October 21=2C 2013 8:31 AM To: "users@flex.apache.org" >=2C "dev@flex.apache.org" > Subject: Different Font result when using embed and not In the attachment i have a project test. In this project test i am using 3 types of fonts: embed by swf (using the f= ntswf utility)=2C embed by css and not embed. And i have 2 different results Embed by swf and by CSS i have the same result and not embed gives another = result. Now start the true problem the better result is when the font is not embed = because when embed the fonts gets blurry not perfect! Some time ago i open a discussion with the title blurry fonts and on the en= d no one can say a really motive why this happens... I was checking font types=2C special fonts to see if different fonts give b= etter results and so on. kerning off/on=2C etc=2C ... But where is the explanation when we use not embed the fonts presents the s= ame as before the lunch of SDK 4.5.1 (new text renderer) but when embed the= results are different with a worse presentation of the font? You can save a life? An explain this special situation that with the most recent version he have= worse presentation even when "they" say that we will have a better one? kind regards=2C Miguel Ferreira --_59515d96-0f9b-4acf-943e-db3dc69f80f2_--