Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!apple!flaig
From: flaig@Apple.COM (Charles Flaig)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Gray-scale antialiasing
Keywords: anti-aliasing text
Message-ID: <177@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 1 Nov 88 21:21:09 GMT
References: <74013@sun.uucp> <148@internal.Apple.COM> <4763@mnetor.UUCP> <11206@cgl.ucsf.EDU> <1837@ogccse.ogc.edu> <174@internal.Apple.COM>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 24

In article <174@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@Apple.COM (David Casseres) writes:
>In article <1837@ogccse.ogc.edu> wm@cse.ogc.edu (Wm Leler) writes:
>>I am constantly amazed that anti-aliased text has not become the norm.
>>It works (very well).  It is cheap to implement (cheaper than raising
>>the pixel resolution of the display).
>
>As to its being cheap to implement, it's true there is less hardware cost
>in anti-aliasing than there is in greater pixel density.  But until someone
>makes a breakthrough or two, it requires some very intense computation
>right where you don't want it, i.e. right in the middle of your character-
>display loop where it trashes your display performance.

Ummm... What do you have in mind for "very intensive computation"?  I agree
that in the general case it could get fairly complex, but in the simple case
you just insist that characters start on pixel boundaries (not a severe 
restriction for normal work) and use a bit-mapped font that is just N bits deep
instead of 1 bit deep -- no extra computation, just some extra copying.  And
you can always do the extra calculations if you need sub-pixel spaced fonts
for something special.

I've seen antialiased text used for a TeX previewer, and it looks very nice!
I would vouch for it being not only more legible, but also easier on the eyes.

--Charles
  flaig@apple.com