Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 71947
UNX/FT<2.1.10: Monochrome text looks worse since OOE680_m2/SRC680m193
Last modified: 2006-12-08 11:51:30 UTC
On systems which have a system freetype version <2.1.10 and a color depth to small for grayscaling text looks worse since the fix 70930 got integrated.
Only a few fonts seem to be affected at a few pixel sizes. Unfortunately ArialRegular.ttf at 12..14 pixels is one of them. Since - this font is often used on Solaris10 as the system UI font - in exactly these problematic sizes - the freetype version there exhibits the problem - many displays are run with 16bit colordepth but no XRENDER we run into the problem in our UI texts.
Created attachment 40900 [details] file menu with FT2.1.9
Created attachment 40901 [details] file menu with FT2.1.10
@UL/MH: please set a target. I'd suggest P4/OOo2.2 if the the worst case scenario I outlined in my second comment wasn't the work environment in some well known company...
Fixed in CWS ft2109 mono. Testing hints: - only systems with freetype version <2.1.10 are affected (i.e. the library version is <= libfreetype.so.6.3.7) - only X11 platforms are affected, not WIN - only for monochrome text (use colordepth<=16bit when no XRENDER available, else use colordepth==8, or set the environment variable SAL_ANTIALIAS_DISABLE=0) - to see the problem better disable native X11 fonts (set the environment variable SAL_ENABLE_NATIVE_XFONTS=0) - only certain fonts are affected - if a Writer document is used to look for these fonts then please enable "Web-Layout"
@SBA: please verify in CWS ft2109mono (see the testing hints above) @MH/UF: please set a target milestone
SBA: Verified in CWS ft2006mono.
reviewed
adjusting target
Problem seems to be fixed in OOE_m6 but is still there in SRC_m196 (broken since m194). freetype2-2.2.1.20061027-21.1, openSUSE 10.2 so looks like ft2109 works but ft2109mono_SRC680 not?
m196 - http://linux.ee/~vagula/ooshots/mono.png rc2 - http://linux.ee/~vagula/ooshots/mono1.png
@vagula: Thanks for the screenshots. They show that the problem you are seeing is a duplicate of issue 72384, but not to this issue here.
Closing this issue again.