Font is more difficult to read on PDF-XChange Viewer

[HAN]

Hello!
We have recently purchased several Pro licenses and are getting along fine except for one issue. The Courier New TT font displays as less of a shade of black and more as a shade of gray when viewing it on the screen. It is making documents composed of Courier New noticeably harder to read. When comparing Courier New documents displayed in PDF-XChange to a couple of other PDF viewing products, PDF-XChange Viewer is consistently harder to read without zooming in. (I have a comparison screen grab that clearly shows the difference between PDF-XChange and a another free PDF reader. I tried to load it as an attachment but the bulletin board software won't allow me to load it.)

Is there a way to adjust the default setup to compensate for this difference? If not, can this be looked into as an improvement in a later build?

[HAN]

Here is my comparison..

[quant]

You may find the following thread helpful
http://www.docu-track.com/forum3/viewto ... =35&t=3666

[HAN]

Yes, that's the answer! Thank you very, very much! FWIW, Tracker developers... Please consider making this a user adjustable setting in a future build.

[UPieper]

I agree that it should be accessible via options. Not everybody feels comfortable editing the registry manually.

[John - Tracker Supp]

I can confrim that we are looking to add this into build 2.0038.

thanks

[David.P]

This is great news -- however, is there any chance that Cooltype aka Cleartype font rendering will be added to XChange Viewer?

Fonts are even sharper and have higher on-screen resolution on most screens when Cooltype/Cleartype is used as compared to standard anti-aliasing:



Left picture: very sharp Cooltype/Cleartype anti-aliasing (Adobe Acrobat)
Right picture: slightly fuzzy standard (greyscale) anti-aliasing (PDF-XChange Viewer)

Thanks,
David.P

[Lzcat - Tracker Supp]

No, we do not plan support cleartype in the Viewer text rendering.

Also, I don't think that this technique would give us any benefits - because we are using a different text rendering and anti-aliasings mechanism. See the attached picture with the same text displayed in Adobe Acrobat/cleartype, Adobe Acrobat/standard antialias and the PDFX Viewer. Maybe this will be changed in the future - if we find a more suitable mechanism.

[David.P]

Hi Victor and thanks for the response.

On my screen however, the Cleartype variant (leftmost) still looks best, next best is the Adobe standard variant (middle), whereas the PDF-XChange Viewer rendering (rightmost) looks (sorry....) most fuzzy.

Remember, as you will know cleartype/cooltype is *sub*pixel rendering, therefore this leads to a much higher visible resolution than with standard antialiasing methods. This makes sense (at least on displays with more than about 90dpi) since the human eye has a much lower color resolution than its greyscale resolution, which is why on such diplays, the CT color banding is not recognized as such, but rather leads to visual triplication of the horizontal screen resolution.

Hopefully therefore, CT antialiasing can be implemented at some stage,

Cheers David.P

[Lzcat - Tracker Supp]

Actually I'm not a fan of cleartype - because I see different colors when it is used. However if cleartype will be used in rendering (it will be otpional anyway) - we will not get text more clear, because of different font rasterization algorithm.
We know about such difference in rendering fonts, and we will improve it in future. But don't ask when