Embeded fonts anti aliasing

Similar Questions

• Anti-aliasing in HTML text without embedding the fonts - possible?

  Hello

  I use CSS to style a dynamic textFiled compatible HTML in Flash. To save on the size of the SWF, I do not ship fonts but use the following CSS:

  var cssText:String = ' p {do-family: Verdana, Geneva, _without;} '. font size: 26px; color: #F5C080; make-Style: italic ;} « ;

  That should ensure police Verdana size is used on Windows and Geneva fonts on Mac platform without embedding the fonts.

  But is it possible to apply anti-aliasing?

  For some reason any

  antiAliasType = AntiAliasType.ADVANCED;
  gridFitType = GridFitType.PIXEL;
  Song.sharpness = - 400;

  doesn't seem to work at all, and large fonts looks irregular.

  Should I really police ship to operate anti-aliasing? It would be no fun!

  anti-aliasing has no effect unless you embed a font.

• Anti-aliasing of fonts not embedded

  I read that Flash Player 10 introduced a new text engine that provides anti-aliasing of device fonts, or fonts that are not incorporated.  How can I take advantage of this in Flex?  I have Flex Builder 3.0.214193.  The documentation says I should use built-in fonts to get anti-aliasing.  And indeed, if I do not incorporate fonts, I certainly don't get any anti-aliasing.

  Thanks in advance!

  None of the Flex 3.x components can use this feature.  You can put your own text on screen using flash.text.engine classes, if you want.  Flex 4 components will be able to do.

  Alex Harui

  Flex SDK Developer

  Adobe Systems Inc..

  Blog: http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui

• Why Firefox is made of fonts while stairs and blocks, w/no anti-aliasing?

  FF 29.01 under Windows 7. You can see the image below the link to compare how browsers should make the fonts and how my browser actually renders the police. It is not a question of magnification. I have already installed the Anti-Aliasing Tuner extension. I added the layout.paint_rects_separately boolean as well.

  http://i.imgur.com/6kdcFok.PNG

  Seems to me that ClearType is disabled.
  http://www.thewindowsclub.com/disable-font-smoothing-Windows

  This only applies to Firefox? If yes you switch to another font in Firefox settings?

• Windows 8 and anti-aliasing of fonts

  Hello!

  This is my first post in the Microsoft community.
  I'm a big fan of this company, and that I usually use their products in my studies, work, mail... etc.
  I've used Windows since XP, and I'm very happy with the last windows8.
  Windows 8 is much more fluid and more "BOLD", I love it!
  There's only one small problem, but it's really important me: font smoothing.
  I started using Ubuntu lately in my brother's laptop, and I was completely impressed by the display of fonts on it.
  It seems bigger, more professional and more :-)
  The police is 'acceptable' on windows only when it is greater than 50px.
  I see an evolution on this way on IE for ie9, but it certainly not the same as Ubuntu
  Can they take this thinking in mind when working with blue windows, or they will ignore it and continue with the fonts as 15years ago...

  Hello!

  I would like to offer a way to adjust your font smoothing.  To account for many types of LCD monitors and different types of pixels, Windows has adjustments to the police of smoothing method it uses.  It is possible that an optimal method of inferiority is currently used.  Here is how to adjust it:
  1. Open your startup screen and type the word "clear" (search results appear when you start typing).
  2. Select the category of settings on the right, then click on the result of research called "adjust ClearType text' to start the ClearType text.
  3. Click next in the wizard and then step through the calibration.  At each stage, you will be asked to click on the text that is best for you.  This will allow Windows to use better anti-aliasing of fonts for your system and your preference.

• Static text not anti-aliasing in CS3/AS3

  I imported Helvetica Roman 55 (FTT) in my library, point 14 and called it f-Body Text *. I have all three types of text boxes: static, dynamic, and input. The font size varies from 18 to 14 (most is 14). Anti aliasing is set to "readability." Everything is perfect in the authoring environment. At time of execution that the dynamic and input text seems perfect, but all static text is put in correspondence of the bits.
  
  I tried to adjust the custom anti-alias and used extreme smoothing, text is blurred, as expected in the environment, but bit mapped in the SWF creation.
  
  I tried Arial instead of Helvetica, same results.
  
  I tried to change the static text to dynamic and integrated the characters required only, this has solved the problem and may be a possible work around.
  
  Anyone know what is happening?
  

  Applied CD

  > Must refer to as much as I know all the static text
  > the symbol of the police.

  The problem is only the dynamic text fields support the outlines of fonts embedded.
  If my hunch is that your static text fields are doing the best they can with
  they are given. Note, for example, that the character button incorporation
  (in the property inspector) goes away when you change a text field to
  public static.

  > I? ve already taken the lead and change all my static text
  > dynamic, integrating specific glyphs required, deactivation
  > the? selectable? and by setting the multiline property
  > as required.

  Yes, that would do, but try to change a return to the static and point
  He the real police rather than the symbol of the police. Static text fields
  stir in automatically, and it is much easier to maintain in this respect.

  David Stiller
  Adobe Community Expert
  Dev blog, http://www.quip.net/blog/
  "Luck is the residue of good design."

• Weird * stretching * text anti-aliased in the Textbox

  I use Flash 8 (actually with CS3 but all recording mode Flash 8 and use AS2.) I'm also kind of new to the present).
  I have a button that loads a dynamic text in a text box using this actionscript:
  
  on (release) {}
  loadText = new LoadVars();
  loadText.load ("sometext.txt");
  loadText.onLoad = {function (success)}
  If (success) {}
  trace (Success);
  _root. TextBox.outsideFilename.htmlText = this.externaltext;
  }
  };
  }
  
  Loads of everything very well - EXCEPT when I choose "Anti-alias for readability" (and use a non-standard font and integrate some character sets) all the text in the text box out elongated vertically - it comes out looking stretched for some reason any. Is this a normal behavior? Looks terrible and not what I want. If I don't choose to be the choice of "Smoothing", while proportions are correct them all, but not anti-aliasees of course. What I'm missing here? I would like to think proportionally correct anti-aliasing of text.

  If you size your textbox (Note: change the width and height in the Panel properties scales your textbox, unfortunately) then the text content will be stretched.

  However, scalability text works on embedded characters. This is why the scale appears only when you choose to incorporate characters. To resolve this problem:

  (1) remove any scaling of the text box. To do this, select your text and use the panel(Window > Transform) transformation to set the width and height to 100%

  (2) resize your textbox using arrow tool or the type tool.

• Why my text have jagged edges (even with anti-aliasing on smooth)?

  I put anti-aliasing on smooth, 100% zoom, and it always looks terrible. Not use the fake bold or italic. I tried "reset character" and he looks even worse. Tried also all other anti-aliasing options. Honestly, I can't think of anything else.

  It's may be the police good "cheap", but I've included someone of another image using the same exact font and it seems. What is going on? I've never had this problem before. The only thing I can think is that I have just started using photoshop on my Macbook, do Mac ttf files not read correctly? Any help would be appreciated.

  With the help of CS6 and MacBook Air.

  vs the two png at 72 dpi.

  Solved. In case someone had the same problem, it's because I was typing under a layer of levels rather than above it.

• TextField properties - differences in anti-aliasing

  Can someone explain what differences and the use of anti-aliasing:

  (1) device fonts

  (2) bitmap-text

  (3) anti-alias for animation

  (4) anti-alias for readability

  Anti-aliasing, basically removes "aliasing" and "pixelation" by softening the vectors. Things so now as text, which are vectors, the text seems smooth.

  Device fonts use fonts of the users operating system and are not smoothed. Thus, they will appear in stairs and pixely. However people can take advantage to make sure that the characters (especially Asian multibyte) are available and did not need to be integrated in flash allows you to save a lot of the size of the file.

  Anti-alias for animation is a cheaper, easier to make but softer version of the search for anti-aliasing. Good for drivers of non-text. They call it animation because it is easier on the processor for rendering.

  Anti-alias for readability adds a bump contrast at edges making text look more clear, so more readable.

  Bitmap text is not vector. It records the text as bitmaps and usually only follow these steps if you plan to use bitmaps. You choose the size of the police and it is not really good to use sizes of spare for policies other than that you select. This is useful for games that sometimes do not want to load to the vectors of text. Instead, the text is just a bitmap and is easier to make.

• Which past now and not days ago = > publication of text captions with anti-aliasing off the coast looking for really bad.

  I reported the bellows of text and I'd like to know if it happens to someone else.

  Concise problem statement:

  When you publish buttons with text or text with antialiasing off the coast, the result is very bad.

  Last project I cancelled 2 months ago and it seems good. But when I did a few changes yesterday and I published it again all the buttons and links that they looked very bad.

  I tried with different computers, where they have installed captivate and I have reproduced the bug how I show below and in any place of same problem.

  I can't show the client the changes because the evil look textfields.

  I tried to reinstall all the options, Captivate and install older versions of flash and nothing plugin, everything looks the same. Probably a windows update may cause the problem, I don't know.

  
  Steps to reproduce the bug:
  1. black background or dark color
  2. create the button and select Properties
  3. Select the text color color yellow or clear, size of large font (24-30) and transparent background
  4 publish

  Results: no text no embattled arround White halo, eat as the text. The part of the text is a bit fuzzy.

  Resemble the translucent color part of the text to produce somehow anti-aliasing is white in color.
  
  Expected results: the net image as html on browser text.

  Hi again

  Well, it give a try.

  Minimize all applications that you can see the desktop.

  Right click on the desktop, then select Properties.

  Click the appearance tab.

  Click on the effects button.

  You see an option called use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts?

  If so, disable the option and click OK.

  Report back if you still have this option and, if so, if you erase it helps.

  See you soon... Rick

  Useful and practical links Captivate wish form/Bug report form Certified Adobe Captivate training SorcerStone blog Captivate eBooks

• In any case for the value Compenent of the list is NOT anti-aliased text?

  As you may know, pixel fonts are tiny size, specially created for NOT being anti-aliasing. Use you the size of 8, with anti-aliasing pixels, the value "bitmap (no anti-alias) '.
  
  But I can't find how to specify this parameter for a list item type. I can incorporate the police and get to use the police, but he alias against it. Any ideas? Thank you

  Nevermind, it seems that the clip that the List component was inside was not aligned to pixels the same.

• Ugly anti aliasing in Fireworks CS3

  Fireworks has a bad method for the creation of anti-aliasing.
  
  Two problems:
  -only 4 colors to paint the outline of the object
  -extra pixels on the sharp edge
  
  The image of these two problems
  
  How to fix these now, and if they would be resolved in a future well?
  

  OK...

  I put 'Pix' in a script font, which is the worst thing you can do. I've made two copies. One in 25 pt and other PT 100, which is 4 times bigger. The 25 pt chain is 20 pixels high and the pt 100 chain is 80 pixels high. I exported the image, reduced to 1/4 of its size and it added in the original comparison image.

  Here are two screenshots, one to 300% and the other to 100%.
  test alias fonts at 300%
  Police alias test to 100%
  The reduced graph is shown with a drop shadow. As you can see, the smaller version of the 100 PT string is aligned exactly with guidelines for 25pt chain. It is also a better reproduction of the characters of fonts.

  (Note that I would never use this font at that size).

  As long as you reduce by the same factor that raise you, your math will work out.

  Here's another example, I found in my Photobucket account when I saved these examples for you: double and half Arial text

• Example of signals with a filter anti-aliasing

  I use PCI-6259 6221 PCI and USB 6221 cards in different configurations. As I understand it, is that the anti-aliasing filter on all of these cards is fixed to pass to the frequencies of 1 MHz. If I'm a signal from a RG58U BNC cable that is supposed to contain higher frequency of 1 kHz sampling, but there is noise of high frequency present there. A sampling of the signal to 2 kHz would be enough to acquire the signal correctly, or these high frequencies would affect the components of low frequency on sampling?

  I read about too much sampling that allows you to use digital filters (I'm guessing that software filter can be used) If you sample the data at a higher rate. You should always use the anti-aliasing filter, but the required parameters are more relaxed. Would this work in my case? The anti-aliasing filter on my cards has a very high bandwidth, so I don't know how much I need to do to acquire the signal correctly oversampling. Is there an equation?

  Also, if the analog inputs for data acquisition cards are generated by a filter (for example when recording ECG or EEG) which allows you to specify a bandwidth frequency, I still need a filter anti-aliasing? Would be the distance between the amplifier and the DAQ card much a difference when it comes to the generation of noise on the cable?

  In general, I try just to see if my current collection method at the rate of Nyquish with the maps I have is good or not. I just save the data without even using any digital filtering (software).

  That's right - if you go down to 10kS/s then the temporal resolution and minimum pulse detection would 100us.  If it is a just sampling rate or not depends on your requirements for the accuracy of timing and jitter.  In other words, if it's OK that your pulse Detection could could delay until 100us then a 10kS/s sampling frequency should be OK.

• Filter low pass analog (anti-aliasing filter) external to the NI USB 6251 housing

  Hello everyone!

  -I m trying to acquire an analog signal of tension (high frequency content) using a connected to an edge NI USB-6251 BNC-2110. I learned in this Labview Forum that NI USB-6251 has no analog low-pass filter programmable (or anti-aliasing filter), so that I can't help but jitter when scanning my signals. For my application, the cutoff frequency of the analog low-pass filter must be equal to 100 kHz or MORE (maximum of 500 kHz). A possible solution to solve my problem, would be to work with an external analog low-pass filter before you scan the voltage signal. Based on this I'd like to know:

  (1) national Instruments develops analog external filters? I need a filter which also has one output, analog, so that I could send also the low-pass analog filter filtered signal to my NI USB-6251 box to scan correctly it!

  (2) what model of external low pass filter would be compatible with the NI USB-6251 housing?

  Any help would be much appreciated!

  Best regards!

  Hello

  all high resolution of the M series (628 x) cards are equipped with a filter low pass which can be enabled or disabled programmatically. For the anti-aliasing filter feature, examine the boards of National Instruments DSA (dynamic signals Acquisition) acoustic and vibration measurement
  currently the NOR 9221, 9225, 9227, 9229, 9233, 9234, 9235, 9236, 9239 and 9237 C Series modules feature anti-aliasing filters. These modules are intended for the high accuracy measures for which anti-aliasing filters are a necessity.

  Houssam Kassri

  OR Germany

• cRIO thanks the Module NI 9237 bridge in the Interface of scanning and Anti-Aliasing

  Hello

  I have questions about the use of a Module NI 9237 bridge with CRIO and its use in Scan Interface mode. The manual speaks the data rate of the module, and a (n) parameter that can be set to adjust (to a minimum of 1613 Hz) which in turn puts across the module built in anti-aliasing filters. It seems (but not explicitly stated) that this data rate setting is available FPGA programming mode.

  Our application is currently running in mode Scan Interface, so my question is what is 'throughput' module (and therefore anti-aliasing filters) mode Scan Interface? And, if we have the analysis period the value 10msec (100 Hz), y at - it no filtering of the anti-aliasiing of software provided automatically by scanning interface itself related to the period of scanning? Or all the anti-aliasing extra something that we must build within ourselves? I looked at the example provided with Scan Interface and there is nothing more.

  I don't understand about anti-aliasing, just need to clarify what is happening for this specific module mode Scan Interface.

  Thank you

  Andy

  Hi Andy,.

  I had to have a quick sleep on this night to get my facts right, hope that the delay was too long!

  The minimum data listed in the 1613 samples/s are due to a forumla that uses the internal time base that is fairly well explained on page 20 of the Manual. The sweep period did not affect the rate of data, or to activate the anti-aliasing filter. My previous post was wrong in that sense, apologies!

  This page helps explain mode of scanning pretty well too, but the best way to explain it is that even if the frequency of the module can be attached to 1613 samples/s or higher, the compactRIO will collect only 1,000 of these samples a second, or in your case if you are using a rate of 10ms loop, 100 of these samples of 1613. The anti-aliasing cut will be based on 1613 x 0.45 as you said and so will be 725Hz (not based on the rate of loop as I mentioned incorrectly)

  In this case with these modules it is probably a good idea not to use a period of scanning slower than 1 msec for the reason you said - if you're worried about oversampling you can always you decimate readings in the software afterwards to take each readings from 1 to 10 (this page explains how do with an eerily similar situation!)