Summary: | Flatness in a Type 3 font | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Ghostscript | Reporter: | Igor Melichev <igor.melichev> |
Component: | Graphics Library | Assignee: | Igor Melichev <igor.melichev> |
Status: | NOTIFIED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | P3 | ||
Version: | master | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Windows XP | ||
Customer: | Word Size: | --- |
Description
Igor Melichev
2004-07-21 05:55:47 UTC
Same with 321-09.ps . ppmraw -r300 CAT_LOGO.ps - a line width is bigger, but with a Type 1 stroked font (maybe another problem). With 298-09.ps, it looks as it performs 'fill' instead 'stroke', because the circle doesn't become wider even with 1200dpi. With -dNOCACHE the rendering is good. Note that without -dNOCASCHE some characters paint good - those ones, which look too big for caching. Well, it appears a flattening problem. The new revision, performing a strokepath with cache device, generates too many segments for 'arc'. Therefore stroking it got something like a 'fill'. The number of segments can be viewed with inserting "false upath length ==" into the charproc. Well, it happened because we removed "point_near" filters from gx_flattened_iterator. Rendering to cache, it passes flatness=0 and the number of segments appear 4 times smaller. Therefore the result is different with -dNOCACHE. But I wonder why the December 09 revision generates SAME path as the current one with - dNOCACHE : probably this happens due to the flattened path is a symmetric 2^k- gon, so old filters remove exactly those segments, which the new one doesn't generate with -dNOCACHE. I don't like that gx_fill_path, gx_stroke_fill and gx_stroke_add uses zero flattness when rendering to cache device. IMO it is reasonable with Type 1,2,9,11,42 fonts, but it must not happen with Type 3, 10 fonts. A part of Comment #6 appears incorrect : the December 09 revision generates same path as the current one with -dNOCACHE, but with no -dNOCACHE parths are different. So no wonder. Renamed the bug because the old title is misleading. The comment #2 is moved to Bug 687667. |