Fonts in KDE always look worse than in GTK for me

Hello, here's a screen shot, compare the fonts of the GTK window with the fonts in the KDE window and judge for yourself:
http://xs127.xs.to/xs127/08225/fonts733.png
I have no specific KDE font configuration enabled, have no ~/fonts.conf either... Why don't fonts look the same in GTK and KDE?
Please post hints/opinions...
Last edited by bughunter2 (2008-05-30 20:44:11)

Try using this in your /etc/fonts/local.conf
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
<!-- the cathectic LCD tweaks, from linuxquestions.org,
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?postid=1361098#post1361098 -->
<fontconfig>
<!-- Disable sub-pixel rendering.
X detects it anyway, and if you set this as well, it just looks really horrible -->
<match target="font" >
<edit mode="assign" name="rgba" >
<const>none</const>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="font" >
<edit mode="assign" name="hinting">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="font" >
<edit mode="assign" name="hintstyle">
<const>hintfull</const>
</edit>
</match>
<!-- The first part of the 'magic.'
This makes the fonts start to look nice,
but some of the shapes will be distorted, so hinting is needed still -->
<match target="font" >
<edit mode="assign" name="antialias">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<!-- Autohinter is not turned on automatically.
Only disable this if you have recompiled Freetype with the bytecode interpreter,
which is run automatically.<br /> -->
<match target="pattern" >
<edit mode="assign" name="autohint">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="font">
<test name="weight" compare="more">
<const>medium</const>
</test>
<edit name="autohint" mode="assign">
<bool>false</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<!-- Helvetica is a non true type font, and will look bad.
This replaces it with whatever is the default sans-serif font -->
<match target="pattern" name="family" >
<test name="family" qual="any" >
<string>Helvetica</string>
</test>
<edit mode="assign" name="family" >
<string>sans-serif</string>
</edit>
</match>
<dir>~/.fonts</dir>
</fontconfig>

Similar Messages

  • Camera Raw 6.1pre - scrolling performance worse than in CR6 for me

    Hi
    I like the quality of the new processing in CR6, but the performance  is much worse than in CS4/CR5.x. This is especially annoying when you  try to scroll in a Raw file using the hand-tool. But then I saw the 6.1 prerelease announced containing "performance enhancements designed to improve the responsiveness  of the controls and the scrolling mechanism relative to Camera Raw 6.0". Happily I immediately decided to give the new prerelease a try...
    But unfortunately I don't see a performance gain when scrolling in CR6.1pre. It is actually worse for me in 6.1 than it was in 6.0. It is now almost impossible to scroll out to the corners of a Raw file using the hand-tool. It fells like it get stuck. And I know never know if I have actually have reached a corner or it is just stuck somewhere on the way out to it. So now if I want to go to a corner, I find it much easier to zoom out by double clicking the hand, and then zoom into the corner by clicking the magnify tool in the corner.
    But the new lens correction is great ! :-)
    Win XP Pro x64 Edition.
    /Stig

    Stig N wrote:
    If you double-click you open CR hosted by Photoshop, ie. 64 bit (Or at least that is the default, you might be able to change it in the settings). But if you right-click a raw file in Bridge and choose "Open in Camera Raw" it is hosted by Bridge.
    Oh?  Was not aware of this; and, come to think of it, I cannot see the reasoning behind not always opening in the faster/better mode.
    Or am I missing something?

  • Still rendered in FCP 6 looks worse than preview???

    I'm importing a still from Photoshop (CS1) into FCP 6. It's a PICT file w/ alpha channel (logo). When I slap the logo on top of my video it looks clean and sharp. But, when I render the clip, it comes out looking rasterized and I loose my smooth edges. My PICT file is 720x480 and I'm importing to a DV/NTSC 4:3 sequence. I've tried both a square pixel aspect and a D1/DV NTSC .9 ratio in Phsp but the end results are the same- crappy.
    How do I maintain my clean, crisp logo in FCP?
    ~reicko

    It isn't FCP that is messing up your logo, its the DV codec. Hence the reason people spend all the money on 4:2:2 Uncompressed 10-bit equipment.
    That being said, there are some things you can do. First, make sure you are looking at a video monitor that is atched to your deck. What you see on your computer screen is not how the actual video will appear. So it might not be as bad as what you see on your computer screen. If it still bothers you then you might add a slight gaussian blur to "blend" it better into the video.
    Message was edited by: Shawn Birmingham

  • Why does Compressor's HDV output look worse than iDVD's output of same?

    Okay, here's the thing... for weekly updates I've been sending the client outputs via iDVD. And they've honestly looked great. The HDV footage fills the screen and doesn't show any noticeable compression funkiness. But for the screening of the completed first cut I wanted to deliver what I thought would be an even higher quality look (esp since I intended to deliver the completed project mpeg and AC3), so I exported the HDV cut out of FCP via QT and converted it with Compressor's DVD: Best Quality 90 minutes to turn the HDV into SD 720x480 16:9 letterboxed. I then burned it with DVDSP, complete with nice looking menus, etc. And I was shocked viewing the output. The two clips I'd reversed in FCP stuttered, and even a clip with nothing on it was strobing. Plus, close ups showed noticeable compression on the faces. So what gives? Why does it look so much better when I just slammed it out on iDVD? What don't I "get?" I've scoured the books I have and nothing seems to give me a clue.
    Any direction would be greatly appreciated!

    Lightroom uses its own raw converter and its own camera profiles to convert the raw data into an image.  This will never be the same as the camera-manufacturer’s raw image decoding either in camera or using camera-manufacturer-supplied software or any other third-party software.
    Here is a general explanation from a few years ago, that is mostly valid, with the one exception that there are no camera-matching profiles for your brand of camera:
    http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?1285-Why-did-Lightroom-ruin-my-photo
    The IDC is apparently using camera settings and is clearly sharpening the image and quashing some of the lens-flare, oversharpening in my opinion.
    You can do these sorts of things in LR, too, but you have to tell it to do things, it won’t do this by default. 
    The 2010 and 2012 are related to Process Version not Profile, and one difference between the two PVs is how the toning responds to near clipping conditions.  Your reds are very saturated and near if not actually clipping so it is not surprising that the two raw conversions are not the same.
    Can you provide a link to the raw file, using DropBox.com or similar large-file-hosting-service and maybe someone will give some tips on how to make the LR processing closer to what you’re seeing with the camera-manufacturer version.?

  • Why do AME exports look worse than Premiere exports?

    Has anyone else come across the situation where AME exports don't look as good compared to exporting straight out of Premiere?
    I'm encoding the videos to H.264 MP4 files. The stills (JPEGs) in the video is where I'm having the problem. I've created a sort of slide show with 4 pictures in a short ~10 second part of the video using Scale keyframes and Cross Dissolve transitions.
    When I queue the sequence for export straight out of Premiere, these parts of the video created from the stills look fine. However, when I queue them up in AME, these parts of the video look harsh and have jagged edges (the image quality is greatly reduced on the stills).
    The export settings are identical, as I am using a Preset for H.264 / MP4 / 720p / 23.976 fps / Square pixels / NTSC / Profile: Main / Level: 3.2 / Render at Maximum Depth (checked) / VBR, 1 pass / Target 6 Mbps / Max 10 Mbps / Use Maximum Render Quality (checked)
    Audio (if this would affect anything???) is AAC / 48000 Hz / Stereo / High Quality / 192 kbps / Precedence: Bitrate
    Here are my system specs:
    - The latest versions of CS6 through the Cloud membership (Premiere CS6 6.0.2 / AME 6.0.2.81)
    - Mac OS X Lion 10.7.4 / 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon / 32 GB 1066 MHz DDR3 / NVIDIA Quadro 4000 2048 MB
    - Video footage is AVCHD in MP4 (but that's not where the issue appears to be)
    - Still images are large JPEG files (roughly 6000x6000 px); 300ppi / Bit Depth 8 / RGB Color Mode / Adobe RGB (1998)
    My Premiere sequence is based off of the AVCHD footage:
    AVCHD 1080p square pixel
    23.976 frames/second
    48000 Hz
    Previews are I-Frame Only MPEG, but when I export I do not use Previews (unchecked).
    So…any idea why the exports look crappy coming out of AME as opposed to straight out of Premiere? It would be nice to use AME in the background while working on other projects or when large batches of exports need to be done, but not if the quality is going to suffer (at least when still images are involved). One work around seems to be replacing the still with an After Effects composition. Any idea why this would make a difference?
    Thanks in advance for your help!

    I also had the Use Maximum Render Quality box checked in my export settings
    This should carry over to the AME when you send it to the queue, but you should double-check in the AME.
    So I guess the difference is in the GPU rendering vs software rendering?
    In theory, software MPE with MRQ and Max Bit Depth enabled should produce (nearly) identical results to hardware MPE.
    I had originally understood that this is for rendering previews, but looks like it's also used during final exports?
    For exporting, video frames have to be rendered before they can be transcoded to the final format/codec.  So hardware MPE helps rendering previews, but it also helps the rendering step of the export process.
    That's unfortunate that AME does not utilize the GPU as well. What is the reason for excluding this feature?
    That's a question only an Adobe engineer can answer!  NB: I know for sure that the scaling-using-software-MPE limitation in the AME applied to CS5 and CS5.5.  It may be fixed in CS6, or it may not.  I don't have time to properly research that right now.
    I don't really understand how something as simple as rendering a scaled JPEG image turns out looking bad, while AME can render full-on After Effects comps...???
    If differences in scaling methods don't apply here, there may be system issues or a software bug at work.
    Jeff

  • When I try to export pictures of the night sky in Lightroom, they always look brighter than they are in the preview and are filled with white noise/grain. I've tried changing my color management settings, but to no avail. What can I do to fix this?

    imgur: the simple image sharer
    That's the picture^
    Also, doing noise reduction ruins the colour.
    Why can't it just export properly...

    Since it has always been very basic to backup your computer and all it's data, Apple provides no way for you to transfer music from your iPhone back to your computer.  As you know, you can re-download all iTunes purchases, but music that you ripped yourself you'll have to just re-rip again.
    You can try and find 3rd party applications that might help you.  I'm sure you'll pay, however.
    Let this be a very important lesson learned.
    Best.

  • When I zoom in on photo using iPhoto, how can I save the zoomed in photo please?  This always looks better than cropping., When I zoom in on photo using iPhoto, how can I save the zoomed in photo please?  This always looks better than cropping.

    When I zoom in on photo using iPhoto, how can I save the zoomed in photo please?  I would like a screen shot of my zoomed in photo - is this possible?.  Cropping doesn't give the same effect as zooming in and magnifying the photo.  Any help would be appreciated thank you.  I have an iMac

    To take a screenshot of the zoomed photo, press either the key combination
         ⇧⌘3   for a screenshot of the full screen, or
         ⇧⌘4   to bring up a selection rectangle: select the section of the screen, that you want to save.
    The screenshots will be sent to your desktop; drag them from there to the iPhoto icon in the Dock to import them.

  • When I print a web page, the font size is always the default (which is good for screen reading, but too big for printing), even when I use Text Zoom to make it smaller.

    How can I change the font size when printing web pages?

    When you zoom in, it is like using a magnifying glass - the underlying image remains unchanged, as you have found out.
    You may be able to enlarge the bird to some extent without distortion and without pixilation by resampling.
    Go image menu>resize>image size. Be sure that "constrain proportions " is checked in the dialog.
    More on this from the help menu:
    Photoshop Elements Help | Resizing
    If you google  this topic, you will get many hits.

  • My photos look worse in iPhoto 6 than in iPhoto 4

    In iPhoto 6 on my new MacBook Pro, the quality of images from my Canon PowerShot SD300 is lower than that of the images from the same camera in iPhoto 4 on my iBook G4. When I email photos from the new computer via Apple Mail, they look worse than emailed photos from my old system do--even when I contrast a small 30-40 KB iPhoto 4 image to a 150-900 KB iPhoto 6 image. Is this possible? If it is, then can I change a setting in iPhoto or on my camera, or do something, to rectify the situation?
    MacBook Pro   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

    Thanks for replying, Old Toad. Sorry for my delay in getting back to you.
    When I compare the same image, in edit mode, in iPhoto 4 (on my iBook G4) and in iPhoto 6 (on the MacBook Pro), the first distinction to make is that in 6 the color, especially red, is much richer. The same picture in 4 looks washed out. But while the contrast is higher in 6, the 6 image is less sharp than the 4 copy: in 6 everything's a little fuzzier, blurrier, more pixillated; lines are less distinct. It's as if the color is richer in 6 because the dot pattern is more apparent. This is especially evident when I email the pictures.
    I should add that I've been comparing pictures at the default settings in 4 and 6. When I increase the sharpness in 6 (which I do not know how to do in 4), the problem seems to lessen---until I email the photo. In an email, the sharper 6 image is grainy and, overall, worse.
    Can I do anything else to improve the quality of images in 6? Thanks again.
    MacBook Pro   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

  • Clips look worse after render

    Hello,
    I have added the Color Corrector and RBG Balance filters to my clips, but once I render the timeline, the clips look worse than when they are not rendered. (I play through the time line before I render, and it looks great.) They look really grainy after rendered.
    Running FCP 6.0.2
    QT 7.4.1
    I used the Easy Set up -> HDV-Apple ProRes 422 1080p24
    Clips were shot in 24f with XH A1
    Sequence settings:
    Frame size: 1440x1080 16:9
    Rate: 23.98
    Render Codec: Apple Pro Res 422
    Do I have my settings right?
    I appreciate any help on this!

    It depends what you are doing with the color correction. Raising the blacks/mids too high will introduce noise in itself.
    Another factor is how you are monitoring, FCP always uses a lower res proxy image to better enable real-time playback. You can only really assess the quality on an external pro monitor or at the very least, an excellent TV

  • FLV quality looks better than F4V, what am I doing wrong?

    Hi,
    I exported a small clip as a on2vp6 flv, a h.264 f4v, and a h.264 mp4 file with the adobe media encoder cs4. Each file is the same clip, exported with pretty much the same settings. Resolution: 640x480, 0.5mbps target bit rate, 29.97 fps.
    Everything I read says that for a given file and a given bitrate, h.264 should provide better video quality when compared to a h.263 flv file. I would like to know what I am doing wrong, because the h.264 files look worse than the flv file. I have provided download links for a short demo clip in each format.
    fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.f4v
    http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc7b/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_f4v
    fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.flv
    http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc7e/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_flv
    fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.mp4
    http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc71/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_mp4
    Why does the clip look better in h.263? It seems that everything I encode at low bitrates looks better in h.263 which leads me to believe I am doing something wrong.

    Okay, that is true, they are different codecs. But even adobe says:
    Q: How does H.264 compare with the current video formats supported in Flash Player?
    A: Flash Player supports the Sorenson Spark video codec (based on H.263) and On2 VP6. H.263 is the predecessor of H.264 and was designed for teleconferencing applications, at 64k rates. H.264 delivers even higher quality at lower bitrates. H.264 will deliver the same or better quality when to compared to the same encoding profile in On2. Factors you should consider when choosing a format include the complexity of the content, the desired reach, ability to archive, and licensing considerations.
    at
    http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flash_Player:9:Update:H.264#Q:_What_is_H.264.3F
    Are there any tricks to getting the h.264 to look "better" than the h.263? Like, the h.264 version of the video doesn't even look close to as good, and I think that the f4v version looks worse than the mp4, which I don't really understand since they are both h.264 files. The footage is from a canon XL2 and the original source is ntsc 720x480. Is there anything special I should be doing for encoding in h.264 instead of h.263. The video is going to be only for the web.

  • Looks worse in the store??

    I saw Apple TV today on display in the NYC 5th ave store and Jon Stewart looked worse than VHS. I mean he looked like internet video from 5 years ago. When I came home and looked at an itunes Daily Show on my Powerbook hooked to the same LCD TV (through VGA) it didn't look as bad. Kinda perplexed that Apple would display this thing without the highest quality material. In any case it was enough to keep the box away for the time being. I think VHS decks are selling for $20 these days if at all - not $300.
    Oh yes, but the menus looked so cool. Funny I've never heard a restaurant review that was so excited about how the menus looked. It's usually about the food.

    ...If someone asks me, how such and such a restaurant was last Saturday, I cannot really give a truthful answer as I only, passed by and smelt how bad it was. What I didnt know was what else was cooking inside...but based on that single smell, I made my mind up and told my friends it was horrible...
    P.S. a VCR is easily bought on ebay for 50 cents, however, atm, you won't find an AppleTV for quite that cheap...

  • Font Size problem : Swing font looks smaller than pdf font

    Hi
    I'm facing a problem with font size in my swing application. I'm showing some text with a certain predefined font size. Using the same font size and type on same m/c, I 'm generating some pdf text.
    The problem is that the text in swing looks smaller than the same text in pdf. Is there a way to achieve
    consistency in font sizes.

    please don't cross-post.  pick the appropriate forum and use it.  close your cross-thread.

  • Crummy looking fonts in KDE

    I'm new to Arch and finally got XFree up and running. However, the fonts on KDE look terrible and out of proportion. Tried changing all my fonts in the configuration menus to Times, which I know to be fairly clean in Windows but I still get funny looking fonts that strain my eyes. Any help for a newbie on where to go with this problem would be greatly appreciated, thanks. I also have a flat panel monitor.
    JSkier

    I've had my share of troubles with fonts, but after lots of hard work, I realized that there are ways to solve problems.  I'd like to say first off that I agree fully with the bytecode interpreter being enabled.  I also agree that the msttcorefonts should be installed, along with the bitstream vera fonts.
    However, most people get discouraged, because the Bitstream Vera fonts look awesome antialiased, and the corefonts look awesome not antialiased.  But I have yet to see a GUI that lets you configure which font families are antialiased and which ones are not.  So I played with fonts.conf a bit, and to my delight, I came up with something that works for me and should work for most.
    Put this in your ~/.fonts.conf :
    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
    <fontconfig>
    <dir>~/.fonts</dir>
    <match target="font" >
    <edit mode="assign" name="antialias" >
    <bool>true</bool>
    </edit>
    </match>
    <match target="font" >
    <test compare="eq" name="family" qual="any" >
    <string>Arial</string>
    <string>Arial Black</string>
    <string>Comic Sans MS</string>
    <string>Courier New</string>
    <string>Georgia</string>
    <string>Tahoma</string>
    <string>Times New Roman</string>
    <string>Trebuchet MS</string>
    <string>Verdana</string>
    <string>Webdings</string>
    </test>
    <test compare="less" name="size" qual="any" >
    <double>16</double>
    </test>
    <edit mode="assign" name="antialias" >
    <bool>false</bool>
    </edit>
    </match>
    <match target="font" >
    <test compare="eq" name="family" qual="any" >
    <string>Arial</string>
    <string>Arial Black</string>
    <string>Comic Sans MS</string>
    <string>Courier New</string>
    <string>Georgia</string>
    <string>Tahoma</string>
    <string>Times New Roman</string>
    <string>Trebuchet MS</string>
    <string>Verdana</string>
    <string>Webdings</string>
    </test>
    <test compare="less" name="pixelsize" qual="any" >
    <double>18</double>
    </test>
    <edit mode="assign" name="antialias" >
    <bool>false</bool>
    </edit>
    </match>
    </fontconfig>
    Basically this sets all fonts antialiased, but excludes the Microsoft corefonts.  I have left Impact antialiased because I feel it looks better that way.  But that can be changed at your discretion.
    I hope this helps someone!

  • Since updating to iso7 my battery is needing to be charged at least twice a day.ive always looked after my battery and only ever charge when less than 20% so why is this happening? Thankyou

    Since updating to iso7 my battery is needing to be charged at least twice a day.ive always looked after my battery and only ever charge when less than 20% so why is this happening? Thankyou

    It will take longer to charge the 5G's battery than either the 3G or 4G's battery.
    Not Charge
    - See:    
    iPod touch: Hardware troubleshooting
    iPhone and iPod touch: Charging the battery
    - Try another cable. The cable for 5G iPod (lightning connector) seems to be more prone to failure than the older cable.
    - If a 5G iPod               
    Iphone 5 lightning port charging problem - SOLUTION!
    - Try another charging source like a computer's USB port
    - Inspect the dock connector on the iPod for bent or missing contacts, foreign material, corroded contacts, broken, missing or cracked plastic.
    - Make an appointment at the Genius Bar of an Apple store.
      Apple Retail Store - Genius Bar

Maybe you are looking for

  • Header and footer in Web Template output

    Hi, I have created a web template consisting of several web items like - information field, text fields, chart & analysis. With the help of VC we are exporting this web page into PDF. What my customer want is that to show some particular informatio i

  • How to find MAC of phone last logged into by specific User

    Greetings,  How can I find the MAC of the phone a User last logged in to?  The user is currently not logged in to any phone.  Thank you 

  • Creating Indexes in Production Server.

    Hi All, 1. We have master data table in Production server with 2 million records.This master data table doesn't have any Indexes created which causes the delay in Loading process. How to create indexes in production 2. This table have Index created i

  • Multiple MACTHES  with OR gives error

    Hi, i'm new to oracle database. I have problem with matches when i use OR but with AND it works fine. SELECT DISTINCT members.email , authors.IDq FROM authors, titles, members, queries WHERE (queries.type = 'AND' AND queries.IDq = authors.IDq AND que

  • Which version of Coherence is compatable with Weblogic Server 10.0 MP2

    Want to know : Which version of Coherence is compatable with Weblogic 10 MP2. Is it that Coherence is supported only on WebLogic Server 10.3 and above?