Why do my fonts look bad in jre1.5.0_07?

The project I'm working on at the moment which I finally had working well, now needs to be upgraded to run with jre1.5.0_07. What I find weird is when I run it with the jre1.5.0_07, the text looks fine until i print it, then it looks really bad, depending on which font and font size I use certain letters have to much / not enough space after them, for instance with Times New Roman with font size 10 the letter f has essentially no space after it so the next letter is almost written on top of the f. This only occurs once it is printed, on the computer screen it looks perfect, but coming out of the printer... not so fine.
Now if I take this exact code and change the jre1.5.0_07 to j2re1.4.0_01 (in the call from the batch file which calls all the jars) the page that gets printed off looks perfect again, however I need to make it look perfect using the new java.
I'm not sure if this makes any sense or even if it is under the right topic, I can't say I'm a java expert.
Any help would be very greatly appreciated,
Thank You,
Dale Connor

One other thing,
With the newer java runtime I can see where where I have selected in the text box that is getting printed (I can see the | indicating where I would be typing if i hit keys). Again this does not appear in the old java runtime

Similar Messages

Fonts look bad in OSX jagged text

Hello
I thought apple gave us font smoothing in OSX! My fonts look terrible in QuarkXpress6.0. Is this what I have to look forward to? I miss my ATM.
I did the "font smoothing thing" in appearence-no change.
Also will all my older fonts from when I used OS 7 +8, will these still work in OSX? and by Quark XPress?
Please enlighten me!
all fonts look bad; Goudy old style, bellvue etc. (postscript type 1)
imac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.4) 21" screen

if I zoom out in Quark to view document at say 125% the 45 pt type really looks bad
Hmm. I'm unable to duplicate your problem. I've pasted some random text into Quark, sized it to 45 pt and set the zoom to 125%. No matter if I go up or down, the fonts look very smooth with both Goudy Old Style and News Gothic (I have the Adobe version, not MT, which is from MonoType). Well, if I look real close, I can see a little bit of jaggies around curves. But nothing very noticable.
Is your 21" monitor a CRT or LCD? LCD always produce the best image when used at their native resolution. A CRT's best display varies depending on whether it has a shadow mask or aperture grill tube. If your monitor has an independent control for sharpening, it may be too high.
I have some fonts installed that I don't know where they came from ex: News Gothic MT (Microsoft I think) Will these view and print okay in any program?
As long as it's a standard Mac suitcase style TrueType font, or a complete and proper Type 1 PostScript font, it should just as well as any other.
I keep all my fonts in classic folder and manage w/font book (thats another story) It seems that my classic apps, Illustrator, see most of the fonts all the time eventhough I turned many off in fontbook. Also illustrator doesn't see ALL the fonts.
That's a handful. When it comes to Classic, the rules are a little different. Fonts you manually place into the OS 9 Fonts folder, or are put there by the OS when activating them from Font Book with OS 9 as the choice to be activated for, fonts are then available to both Classic and OS X.
If you deactivate them in Font Book, the fonts will become unavailable to OS X apps. However, any Classic apps will continue to see them until you shut down all OS 9 applications and Classic. In other words, once you open fonts for Classic, they can't be closed to Classic without shutting the entire environment down. Confused yet?
As far as Illustrator not seeing all the fonts, that relates to this part of your question:
Please explain the limitations of classic apps and fonts.
Classic can use any fonts that were in existence for the Mac before OS X. All of your older Mac TrueType and Type 1 PostScript fonts will work in OS X and Classic. Fonts that will work as is in OS X that you couldn't use before on a Mac are PC TrueType fonts. If you have copied any of the OS X .dfonts into the OS 9 Fonts folder, those will not work. A .dfont is a variation of a TrueType font, with the data in the data fork rather than the resource fork as they are with the older Mac TrueType fonts. Neither OS 9 or any Classic apps can read these fonts. Those are likely the ones not showing up in Illustrator.
It sounds like you do a lot of work with fonts. While Apple has improved Font Book quite a bit in Tiger, it's still very much a consumer font manager for those who handle fonts only occasionally. You'd be much better off using a font manager such as Suitcase X1 or Font Agent Pro.

Why do many Typekit fonts look bad on publish of Muse website?

I have published more than a dozen websites with Adobe Muse and Typekit fonts. I have really been drawn to Typekit and the beautifull fonts it brings into Muse. When I am in design mode on a Muse site the fonts look great. My problem is when I preview the site withing Adobe Muse or publish it online the fonts rasterize terribly. I understand that certain fonts display better smaller or bigger but even when I apply this knowledge in my design it still often shows a lack of clarity in fonts. Is there a way to help these fonts appear better? Perhaps I am missing something here but what I don't know.

Every OS, OS version and browser renders live text differently. This is true of fonts served from Typekit as well as fonts installed in the local system. I expect the variation you're seeing is the differences between the AIR rendering in the Design view, the Webkit rendering in Muse Preview and the browser+OS+OS version rendering for whatever environment you're using.
There's a 7 part blog post on typekit.com that explains all the interactions and variations across OSes, OS versions and browsers.
http://blog.typekit.com/2010/10/05/type-rendering-on-the-web/

Why does my 24fps look bad on my TV?

I just got the Panasonic AG-HMC150. I have shot some footage at both 1080p24 and 720p24. I transcode the files to Pro Res in FCP and they look pretty good, I realize the panning isn't as smooth as 60i. I drag one of the files into the FCP timeline and let it automatically "optimize my settings" for the sequence. I have verified that it is 23.98fps and field dominance is none. I have tried selecting "share" and going straight to AVCHD from FCP, and also taking the original MTS file, and Apple Pro Res and dropping into Toast and trying that way. The footage just looks choppy, jiddery and unsmooth. I have seen enough movies in my life to know that when they pan, or have cars drive by, that movies 24fps looks a million times better. My Sony HDTV even accepts and displays 24fps, and when I press info on the TV remote when watching one of these AVCHD discs it in fact says 1080 (or 720) 24p. It just looks bad. Even taking the HDMI output from the camera and hooking up to the TV and playing from the camera looks lousy.
What am I doing wrong? I know a ton of post work goes into Hollywood movies, but why does their 24fps look nice and smooth and mine looks horrible? Do I need to render with pulldown in FCP or something. I can't figure it out. Any advice, suggestions?

I transcode through FCP to apple pro res, the files shows up as 1920x1080 24fps. Field dominance is none. I edit the video and then export as quicktime movie using current settings. The Pro Res file says 23.98 when played in quicktime so I know that's good. I simply then drop the file into Toast (10.0.4) and burn blu-ray disc, selecting DVD as the media. I noticed too I need to change the field dominance under the encoding tab in Toast to progressive, as automatic doesn't work. It only burns the top half of the image. Regardless, when I make these discs and play them on PS3, my TV's info says 1080/24p. Maybe my eyes aren't use to seeing 24fps. Does it sound like I am doing anything wrong in my workflow/encoding process.
Again, good tip on the shutter speed Jerry.

Fonts looking bad after upload

Hi,
I have used a special font, by that I mean a font which will not be found on most computers. Now within some elements, such as a some buttons, a few graphics, the font appears perfectly. When I check on other PC's the font is not what I had selected. Also, the font, when I run the movie through Flash CS4, appears perfect, but once I upload it, the font is not smooth and looks bad. I read up a little about embedding characters, and even tried the option which comes in the text box properties, but nothing seems to help. I don't think I grasped the concept well. Can anyone please explain how I can get my font to appear and look good on all PCs??
Thanks,
Aditi

Is this all dynamic text or is it text that is manually written in to the file at authoring time such that it could be static text? If it is static text but you are using dynamic textfields, then try switching them to be static textfields. If it is already static textfields, then you could try breaking the textfields down to being raw graphics (select the textfield, then choose Modify -> Break Apart, Modify -> Break Apart)
If they must be dynamic textfields, and using the embed option in the properties panel isn't working, then try embedding the font in the library and use it from there... To do that... in the library in the upper right is a small menu where you can select "New Font"... choose that and select the font you want from the list. Then you can assign that embedded font as you normally would, but you need to find the name it has in the library and in trhe font selection it will have an asterisk next to it. So if the Font is named "Font 1" in the library, then in the font selection in the properties panel it will appear as "Font 1* "

Exporting PDF format for web viewing, fonts look bad

Hey everybody I'm relatively new to indesign so sorry if this is a simple one. I'm doing a newsletter in indesign, which will be used stricktly for web viewing. Whenever I export the file as a pdf the body text fonts look a bit off, as though they are slightly pixelated around the edges. This is not as noticable in the artcile titles with larger font, but any smaller font (i'm using size 14, and futura book) and it gets this pixelation, it is even more noticeable in the thinner type sets of the font. Another odd thing is the first page of the newsletter the fonts are more messed up looking than the following pages where the same font types and sizes are used, the only major difference is the first page has a photo on it, but the fonts that look weird are below the photo not overlaying it or anything like that. I turned off all the compression on the pdf export, also tried it will varying amounts of compression but still have the same issue. And I am viewing this in Mac's Preview program, not acrobat.

Ok, just checked through all the flattening preview highlights and everything looked fine in that. Since my exported document looked perfectly fine in acrobat, but sort of pixelated in mac's preview, is there any way around that?
If you are serving the PDF via a web address it will very likely be viewed in a browser (not downloaded and opened in an app like Preview or Reader). All of the browser displays have slightly different anti-aliasing, which you can see if you zoom in on a screen capture of the text. Here's a line of text from your PDF at 100%, magnified to 400% in Photoshop. From top to bottom Safari, Chrome, Firefox:
There's nothing you can do about the anti-aliasing quality of the different browsers and apps. The PDF you posted has live transparency, so it isn't a flattening issue.

[SOLVED] Picasa menu font - looks bad!!!

Some time ago I worte about problem with picasa-beta (AUR) and xorg-server on my 64bit arch install.
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=60162
So I reinstall my system, and now it's 32bit. Of course picasa still looks like shit.
Main window, after first start:
Picasa-beta:
Could you help me to solve the problem. I don't want to alsways downgrade my xorg-server to older version.
Last edited by dziq (2009-01-27 13:52:07)

cdwillis wrote:I think it's a problem with Nvidia drivers and Wine. I never could find a workaround for getting the fonts to display correctly, but I really didn't put a lot of effort into it.
I confim! The problem is nvidia-96xx driver. When I've installed nouveau driver instead everything seems to be ok. But this driver isn't as good as nvidia.
There is another way to fix up font. Just upgrade nvidia-96xx and nvidia-96xx-utils to 96.43.10-2 version by modyfing PKGBUILD's.
Last edited by dziq (2009-01-29 10:46:21)

Why does my encode look bad?!?

OK! Here are my problems.
My source material is a Quicktime movie, Animation codec, rendered from After Effects. 1280x720 at 23.976fps. It looks great. The duration is about 3 minutes in length.
I have taken that footage and encoded it using Sorenson Squeeze 5 into .mp4 files (h.264) using the Sorenson codec, the Main Concepts codec and the Apple codec. All at VBR rate of 20Mbits.
Problem #1: Importing pre-encoded files into Encore results in Encore wanting to transcode them again. I never had this problem with SD DVDs, but it seems I cannot import h.264 files without Encore wanting to re-encode them.
Problem #2: Well, I guess I am stuck using Encore's built in encoder. This sucks because I like the additional controls I have encoding using Sorenson. Sooooo, I transcoded my uncompressed Apple Animation Quicktime file and then I built a folder.
The problem with #2 is that Encore's encode looks like crap. Text and images clearly appear aliased. Maybe it is converting the video to 50i instead of keeping it at 24p, but my project settings are clearly set for 24p. As a test, I used the VLC player to play the files out of the encoded folder as well as within the Encore environment.
So, first of all, why won't Encore work with my files I encoded/transcoded in Sorenson Squeeze? I know these files are encoded great, they look great... what's up?!?!
Second, anyone else experiencing odd issues with transcoding in Encore?
Thanks everyone.

John,
Ok. Here is our production process for the majority of our work:
1. Sources are either still pictures, vector art, or 24p (23.976). We are pretty effect heavy, so virtually everything gets finished in After Effects. We used to utilize higher-end software, but these days AE works fine for 90% of the workload.
2. We then render to Quicktime - Animation - 100 quality. This is a lossless codec and gives you some pretty huge files. We tried AVI files, but those ended up larger. We render to 23.976 progressive, no fields at all.
3. Into Sorenson Squeeze where we encode into On2 .fla files to display in Flash. Soon we will dual encode in On2 and h.264 for use in Flash. If the end-user is running the newer Flash 9 player, it will pull the h.264 files otherwise it will run the On2.
Now, everything we author is at 720/24p. For the web we pretty much just half the vertical and horizontal resolution (640x360). But for Blu-Ray, we have our source Quicktime animation at full 720/HD resolution.
4. We now open the Quicktime (Apple Animation Codec) into Preimere where we just drop it on the timeline and use the Adobe Media Encoder to generate a Blu-Ray H.264 file. We make sure to uncheck the deinterlace button as it is on by default (even known the source is progressive). This is where Encore fails. Encore seems to deinterlace period, so if your source is already progressive, Encore does a great job of making it look worse by deinterlacing non-interlaced footage.
(Note: Make sure when you encode in Premiere that your maximum bit rate on export is not greater than what you set in Encore or else Encore might transcode again)
5. Import your files into Encore. Your video file and audio file will be two different files. Oh, to encode in Dolby Digital out of Preimere you need a license. We have the Master Collection, but I am not sure if we got a license for that included? However, I am sure you can load up a number of other applications to generate your Dolby digital audio file if you need that. We use used PCM for these jobs, seemed fine.
Burn your Blu-Ray.
Things that still don't work:
h.264 content seems to only import from Premiere properly. I have used a number of encoders now to create Blu-Ray compliant h.264 and every time Encore wants to re-transcode them. Come on Adobe! This bug deserves a patch, seriously.
If you use a progressive clip as an animated menu, Encore deinterlaces it!! And I cannot find a way, at all, to get around that. Again, come on. What is up with the deinterlacing by default in Encore. Even when I need footage deinterlaced Encore is the last tool I would want doing the job!
Blu-ray authoring in Encore is slow. Moments before you will be in Premiere and then when you move to Encore it will feel as though your working through a molasses filter. In addition, Encore is flaky and sometimes your projects will get weirded out and you have to re-build them from scratch.
How about this, new rule, all Adobe employees are required to build 5 blu-ray discs this month. Two of them have to have animated backgrounds. Three should be built with progressive source material, one with interlaced material and one with mixed material. All of them should have professional video quality in the final disc.
Now, report to yourselves the massive amount of bugs you find and get them fixed. You will probably need to put a large portion of your workforce in therapy after being subjected to this process... just FYI.

Font looks bad when typing on russian language

on my win8 when i typing on russian i see below:
fonts for Edge Code not support Cyrillic?

Hi Mosharvos,
Unfortunately the font we use, Source Code Pro, doesn't support Cyrillic currently. But we're talking to the font team about getting it supported. I don't have an ETA on that, but will try to report back to this post when I have something.
If you have any questions, let me know.
=Ryan
[email protected]

Fonts look bad in safari how to fix it

Hey all, just moved up to Lion and not happy with the way text looks on webpages in Safari. It looks skinny and small. Very difficult to read, it's giving me a headache.
Is there any way to fix it so it looks good like it did in Snow Leopard?

Try clearing the browser cache and reset. Quit and relaunch the browser.
If no different try a SafeBoot and restart as normal.

Why font in Pages looks bad?

With the same size and same font, why the way the fonts look in Pages compared to Office Word or even TextEdit, looks kinda crappy and not as smooth as Office Word and TextEdit will display?
How to make it look smooth? It actually doesn't that important for printing, but I'm annoyed with the way it looks.

The way fonts are rendered is simply different. The reasons why it is different are not known with certainty. There are some guesses, but they are fairly complicated and technical.
And no, there is no way around it, except to change screen. Some users perceive no problems and other users perceive problems. Partly the difference may be in our brains, how we perceive small pixels, but it is also in the screen you are using.

Fonts in Windows look bad.

Hi
Compared to the look of fonts on a "real" PC, fonts in Windows on a Mac in boot camp look pretty bad. I have installed the drivers from the Mac CD after installing windows.
I use IE to check web sites that I do on the Mac, but the fonts look way worse than on a "real" PC.
Is there any way to get them looking the same as on a PC?
I have an Apple 20in Cinema Display, if that makes any difference.
thanks
peter

Not sure if this is the font smoothing issue which is active by default on windows or not. You can try the following and see if it helps.
RIGHT CLICK on any open portion of the Windows Desktop.
DISPLAY PROPERTIES Window should open up
Choose the APPEARANCE Tab
At the bottome right click on the EFFECTS button
Check to see that the setting for USE THE FOLLOWING METHOD TO SMOOTH EDGES OF SCREEN FONTS: is set to STANDARD.
Select OK on the remaining windows and see if that makes a difference.
Axel F.

Why does everything look bad on my retina screen?

Brand new retina iMac (two days old). Everything looks bad on my monitor. Fonts, graphics, finder windows, etc.

You can return a new Mac within 14 days of purchase.
Return it and get another one.
A new Mac comes with 90 days of free tech support from AppleCare.
AppleCare: 1-800-275-2273
Best.

Fonts look blurred in COLOR

Why do the fonts in COLOR look so bad? I can hardly read them! All other apps are ok. The fonts look blurred. Anyone got this?

If you're anything like me, you're using Color on a monitor smaller than what Apple recommends. In Color 1.0, the scale of the user interface was not flexible. On my 15" MBP, the interface was flying off the side of the screen, and I couldn't see all of the buttons. In Color 1.0.1, it scales the user interface if your monitor is too small. On my screen, this results in somewhat blurry text across the interface, but at least I can see all of it.

Why does my PDF look so CRAPPY when I print through acrobat???

I have been having troubles with exporting a PDF from an Indesign file.. when I printed the exported PDF from acrobat, text was printing out very pixelated. I was exporting the file in indesign as a press quality pdf. The text looked fine when I viewed it in acrobat and zoomed in, but when I printed it out it looked very pixelated and not as black as it had when I had printed the file directly from indesign.
so this is what I've figured it out so far... I was exporting to PDF in indesign then opening it in adobe arobat pro and printing from there... for some reason when I went into my advanced print settings in acrobat, it was set to "print as image: 100 dpi." I changed it and it printed out better but not perfect. To double check it was adobe that was causing the issue, I opened and printed the pdf through mac preview. This looked perfect - - exactly like it did when I printed through INDD.
So my questions are, 1> WHY does it automatically printing as an image 100 dpi in adobe? and 2> how can I change this setting so when my client opens it up, they dont have to mess with any of the print settings to get it to look how it's supposed to? Is this a setting I can change when I save the file? I want to make sure it prints out correctly because one of the fonts used is ultralight and can look very very light if printed incorrecty. It looks perfect when I print through preview, but even printing as an image in 600 dpi through acrobat pro, the ultralight font looks lighter and more faded than it should (and than it does in the preview and INDD printed files). If i unselect the "print as image" checkbox, the ultralight text looks better but still not perfect. So that would make my second question >> WHY is the print quality worse when I print through adobe, and how can I remedy this? Any ideas??? Any help much appreciated!
**using acrobat pro 9.4.6 on mac osx 10.6.8

The PDF file itself does not control the "print as image" preference, which should always be turned OFF unless there's a specific need to rasterize the entire page, and is turned off by default in all Acrobat and Adobe Reader installations.
What's the filetype for the ultralight font and what export setting* are you using in ID? If you're exporting to earlier than PDF1.7, OpenType fonts will be converted and may experience some small changes in shape if their hint definitions aren't done right.
*As a side note, bear in mind that InDesign does not use any part of Acrobat when exporting PDFs, so questions specific to that stage in the process should be posted to the InDesign forums.

Why do my fonts look bad in jre1.5.0_07?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for