Why do fonts look better on the stage?

I have a paragraph of text on the stage that looks good (Helvetica Neue, Ultralight), but when I play the movie it looks much thinner and really bad. Why does the text on the stage not match the movie?

If it is static text and you are using a dynamic textfield, try changing it to a static textfield. Also, you may want to try different anti-aliasing settings for the textfield (via the properties panel). If you are doing anything to filter the text, such as applying a drop shadow, this can also impact the appearance. If all else fails, try a different font.

Similar Messages

What happened Autofill in Version 4, Google Chrome is looking better all the time, Mozilla is kinda loosing it!!

What happened Autofill in Version 4? Google Chrome is looking better all the time, Mozilla is kinda loosing it!! You guys following microsoft down the toilet?

See this for support information about the Google Toolbar.
[http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/?hl=en]
Or visit the Google Toolbar forum.
[http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Toolbar?hl=en]

How do i make system fonts look better?

i am attempting to use univers, which is a system font and so exports as an image. i am using it at a larger size. when i preview in browser, it looks choppy. is there a way to make these system fonts less so, closer to the regular look of web safe fonts? thank you.

The short answer is set an opaque background fill on the text frame (it can be a solid color, gradient or background image).
When the browser or OS is drawing live text, it has the benefit of knowing the exact color of every pixel that will be behind the edges of the text and it uses this knowledge to adjust the colors of the edges of the text to smooth the appearance—a process called anti-aliasing.
When Muse is creating an image for a System Font in a text frame with a no fill (or a semi-transparent fill), Muse can't know with certainty exactly what colors will be behind the text. Therefore Muse uses a "grayscale" version of anti-aliasing. Grayscale anti-aliasing provides a better appearance than the hard stair steps of no anti-aliasing, but the end result is inferior to the color anti-aliasing that's possible when the background pixel colors are known and opaque.

Create DNG Profile - Why does it look different in the DNG Editor vs LR/ACR?

Hi everyone, I am sorry if this has been covered before -- perhaps you could give me a link to the relevant info.
I have a client who shoots with a Leica DMR. The reds are way to saturated and magenta. We created a new camera profile in the DNG editor using a color-checker chart, shot at D6500 and Tungsten. Looks great, and Lightroom recognizes it. The issue: when we look at a photograph in the DNG editor with this profile, it looks much better. When we look at the same photograph in LR/ACR with the profile selected, the reds are still too saturated and magenta (though way better than without our profile). Why would a photo look different in the two applications, with the same profile?
As shown in DNG Editor:
As shown in LR:
Thank you for any light you can shed on this.
Laura Shoe

Here is an additional comparison further highlighting the magenta issue (amongst others). Shot with Leica R9 w/DMR(firmware1.3) using Leica Vario-Elmarit-R 35-70mm at ISO 100, f/4.8, 1/60. Manual WB=4912K, no Exp Comp.
Here is screen shot of same DNG image. Un-altered in either app., no presets, no sharpening, or noise reduction. CaptureOne (v4.8.3) on the left, and LR2 (v2.6)
Here is what the above screen shot looks like thru CS3:
you must click on image to see CS3 rendering - browser is not accurate
Anyone no what's going on?
PS the images were shot just shy of perfect focus to test sharpening in both apps, same levels applied to both images (C1 on left, LR on right). Here are the results:

Why do fonts looks different between Photoshop and devexpress winform

Hi,
I am creating a mock ups in PSD using font Verdana 10
when the developers using the same font on DevExpress win-forms the results looks extreme different.
can you help me understand why this is happening?
Thanks a lot,
Anat

The glyphs are described by mathematical functions, there is no ambiguity if it is the same font.
If the text is immediately embedded as a raster graphic (opposed to keeping text as vector in
an exported PDF), then it is impossible to represent the accurate shape by only few pixels
(10pt, 72ppi: very few pixels; 10pt, 288ppi; four times more in both directions).
Therefore Photoshop can apply anti-aliasing: None, Sharp, Crisp, Strong, Smooth. The names
don't say much, but the appearance is different. You may try which mode is your best choice.
Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

Hello, I am interested in buying this week of a mac mini 2011 with intel graphics HD3000 but I'm not sure it looks good with my Samsung SyncMaster933HD monitor. How would it look better with the hdmi-dvi connection or a built-in display adapter port-vga

Hello, I am interested in buying this week of a mac mini 2011 withintel graphics HD3000 but I'm not sure it looks good with my Samsung SyncMaster 933HD monitor. How would it look better.... with the hdmi-dvi connection built in, buying a HDMI 1.3 cable and HDMI-making or buying an adapter hdmi display port - vga and connected through the port thunderbolt
Thanks

I originally set up my mini with the included HDMI -> DVI adaptor to connect to a Sycmaster monitor. The graphics were very good.

Fonts looks pixelated in the ipad

Hi, The font in the iPad looks very thin and not clear, whereas in the indesign it looks good. The font size is 14 pt Whitney Regular. Cay someone help me how to solve this issue.
Stan

Alex, it depends on the license you are using the fonts under. Sadly,
"nobody" knows what that means or cares about it. But it depends on the
type foundry you licensed the fonts from.
—Johannes
>
Beste Grüße,
Johannes Henseler
NORDSUEDDESIGN Büro für digitale Kreation
PORTFOLIO nordsueddesign.de
BLOG frischmil.ch
Alfterstraße 16
50969 Köln
+49 177 629 63 55
UMSATZSTEUER-ID DE244595644

Need help identifying why my fonts look horrible

I reinstalled Arch on my desktop, but forgot to backup my font configuration files. I had Monaco set up very nicely before, but now it looks horrible on my new install, and I can't really see what I'm doing wrong. As far as I know, I was just using the ttf-monaco, freetype2-infinality and fontconfig-infinality (w/ osx2 style) packages, and then modified the infinality.conf file (with emboldened Monaco) and Xresources.
This is what it looked like before:
http://i.imgur.com/dFJRKbt.png
This is what it looks like now:
http://i.imgur.com/QHsLTF3.png
~/.Xresources
Xft.antialias: true
Xft.hinting: false
Xft.rgba: rgb
Xft.dpi: 96
/etc/fonts/infinality/infinality.conf
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM 'fonts.dtd'>
<fontconfig>
<selectfont>
<rejectfont>
<pattern>
<patelt name="fontformat" >
<string>Type 1</string>
</patelt>
</pattern>
</rejectfont>
</selectfont>
<match target="font" >
<edit name="embeddedbitmap" mode="assign">
<bool>false</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="pattern" >
<edit name="prefer_outline" mode="assign">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="pattern" >
<edit name="do_substitutions" mode="assign">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="pattern" >
<edit name="bitmap_monospace" mode="assign">
<bool>false</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="font">
<edit name="force_autohint" mode="assign">
<bool>false</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="pattern">
<edit name="dpi" mode="assign">
<double>96</double>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="pattern" >
<edit name="qt_use_subpixel_positioning" mode="assign">
<bool>false</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<match target="font">
<test name="family">
<string>Monaco</string>
</test>
<edit name="embolden" mode="assign">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
</match>
<include>infinality/conf.d</include>
</fontconfig>
Also, bold isn't showing up in termite but does in gvim? Not sure why that's happening.
Last edited by mpeebles (2014-01-06 11:51:11)

grepping for "font" in the termite git log, I stumbled upon this:
commit a05fdcd4d15316f258175e9a526058bad2c8e7ea
Author: Simon Gomizelj <[email protected]>
Date: Sat Nov 23 20:37:18 2013 -0500
better warning for no browser
...skipping...
Config option to enable/disable bold font
which suggests that a feature to do exactly that (disable bold fonts) has been introduced to the termite codebase. I haven't used termite myself, but either reverting to an older revision than a05fdcd4d15316f258175e9a526058bad2c8e7ea or just enabling bold faces through the said config option could be a solution to your problem.
Last edited by elipp (2014-01-07 19:46:22)

Why does font looks pixelated when exporting motion template to FCP?

I created a motion template for some text animations and I also tried with just a motion file and when I added either one to FCP it just looks like crap (pixelated edges, really really bad edges)
I noticed this happens if you don't have a drop shadow or a glow selected on the fonts
is there a way to solve this?

http://daystreet.com/Motiontext/Motiontext.html

Why do fonts look different in PDFs?

When I save a Microsoft office document (Word, PowerPoint, Excel), one font does not appear correctly in the PDF. What do I do?

You use Microsoft Office programs to save the docs as PDFs? If so, no Adobe software is involved; you should ask in the appropriate Microsoft Office forum.

ICloud calendar (iCal) looks better than the one in MBP

Hi,
My calendar in MBP looks different from my calendar when viewed thru
https://www.icloud.com/#calendar
The iCloud one has a timeline under the calendar etc. Can I make my "MBP calendar a look alike?
Please advice,
pyry

No, unfortunately there is no way to do that.

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.

Font Rendering: Apple vs. the World, Including Adobe

So I created a graphic in Pages, and it looks good. Cept the picture that is part of the graphic is a tad grainy on PNG capture: the result image. So I fired up Photoshop and recreated it there. The image on PNG capture looks better: Photoshop is really about bitmap graphics, so the picture is more clear and accurate.
However, the text that is overlayed on the graphic does not look as good, neither do any of the icons. It's Arial Black, and the text as it looks on the Pages graphic that I created looks better in the PNG compared to what is pumping out of Photoshop. I also tried Illustrator, a vector based program. Same problem. The text doesn't look as good. Apple's Arial Black is tighter, thicker, juicier, cleaner, smoother, etc.
I say Apple's Arial Black because I can't figure out any other reason why the text is coming out of Pages differently than Adobe's wares. Check out the screen grabs (I have stripped out the high res photo: just interested in the text here):
Apple:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30203477@N04/5031004935/
Adobe Illustrator screen grab:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30203477@N04/5031000293/
null

I believe this is the result of sub-pixel antialiasing (SPAA), which optimizes text appearance on laptops. Illustrator's rasterizing doesn't SPAA, which is fine for most CRTs, print, and LCD displays that might be rotated.
It's more a case of the OS being savvy enough to tell what kind of display you have and antialias appropriately. Illustrator's rendering engine does need to support SPAA.

Quick preview looks better than processed raw image...??

Hey all, probably a bit of a "newb" question here... so forgive me, and thank you...
Using a D7000 and often times when I shoot - the preview image on the camera looks BRIGHT, VIVID and ROBUST ... after import however - when reviewing my shots, JUST as I arrow over to the next shot - many of the preview images tend to look better than the processed image that aperture displays once it's done spinning it's wheels.
Perhaps I've messed up a Raw Fine Tuning setting?
When I click on quick preview and browse through an import, the pictures truly look nicer to me than the when aperture processes them.
Without question, the display on my acer monitor is a far cry from the miniature compressed image on the back of my nikon, however the more i shoot, the more I realize a disconnect between what I think I should see, and what I'm ultimately seeing in Aperture.
Are their specific settings to fine tune the import of raw d7000 shots?
Thanks much.. gk

I take it you're shooting and processing RAW images?
It's worth remembering that if you have a picture style selected (i.e. vivid etc), your camera might be applying extra contrast and saturation etc to the image you see on the back of the camera. Camera manufacturers do this so that we can give our pictures some extra punch and colour automatically.
I'd also be wary of comparing what you see on your camera to what you see on your monitor. Unless both are calibrated, you shouldn't trust either of them 100%. The best example of monitor calibration is going to look at TV's in an electronics store. You'll probably notice that in a wall of TV's, some pictures will be darker, some lighter, some more vivid, some more saturated. Using a calibration tool adjusts the picture your screen and monitor displays so that it is 'accurate'.
It's a bit like having a room full of scales and adjusting them so that they all read 1 kilogram when a 1 kilogram weight is placed on each of them. Calibrating monitors will mean that when you display an image on it, it will always look the same rather than getting the some light/some dark problem you saw in the TV store.
It's a tricky subject to explain (don't worry if it doesn't make sense), but you might like to have look around YouTube for videos on the subject.

In v.4 fonts look blurry. Can you solve this shortcoming ?

Fonts look blurry in the overall menu in this new version of browser (v.4). I tried all the options that you specified with the ClearType an so on... It seems that the problem is not from Windows 7 because the old version looks ok. Can you solve this shortcoming ?
Until you resolve it I'll stay with the previous version (3.6.16) which it looks really good.

Yea, when I actually install my applications and launch them from GNOME Shell's menu or launcher the fonts look as blurry as they do when I launch them from Anjuta. Other applications look fine and with the workarounds I described above, my own applications display nicely too when launched from either GNOME Shell or Anjuta.

Why do fonts look better on the stage?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for