08:08 am - Ya' know what?
I just spent the last two days building a new router, effectively from scratch, based on some of the latest technologies. Linux 2.6.x, etc, etc, with TONNES of very nice features.
And I'd spend next week rebuilding it again with a properly 'stripped down' custom install I'd burn to a single CD-R, but that likely wouldn't get me any more pay.
I have the damn knowledge, but I just can't get the money for it. So, I'm going to talk to my Dad, and follow up with his idea for doing tech-support for folks up in the hills, once I pass my drivers test on Wednesday.
Not if. When.
I'm a little annoyed.
Annoyed that someone thinks the PhotoShop rendering of the above actually looked better than the MacGimp rendering. The PS rendering... it's just not that good for screen use, it doesn't even try to kern the text to align with the screen, so everything, everywhere, is blurry medium-gray at the darkest.
But I think that's a difference of intended uses. PS's approach is more 'correct' for rendering the same layer of effects at numerous seperate resolutions, from print to screen, and having them all look as identical as possible.
GIMP assumes you're working at your final resolution, I guess you could say. So it tries to do things like avoid 'anti-aliasing' perfectly vertical or horizontal edges on text, things like that.
And the complaint they had about this bit... is that it looks like it was simply blurred, and not anti-aliased.
Well, fancy that, looks like they were using one of the overly-smooth-fading brushes. Of course it looks blurry.
of the review is honestly spot-on. GIMP is overly-cluttered with icons everywhere, and the menus STILL need serious re-org, but the two technical dings are ones I just don't follow.
And I guess I'm curious if any of you graphics-types can ellucidate if there's some more 'hidden' reason to avoid adjusting the kerning of text for screen use when rendering low-resolution text? The overly-blurry stuff just looks, well... blurry to me. :-/5 comments