You'll notice that only the outline object can be moved, say, 0.3 pixels to the left.
Well, I don’t notice that.
And how is this supposed to be a bug?
The way I see it Paths can be moved less than one pixel, pixel content can’t.
Placed Smart Objects are pixel content even if they contain Vector data.
Edit: That refers to moving with the Move Tool, Transformations are different.
Ah, I see what you mean now, when Transforming the SO in one or two direction less than a half pixel the type’s resulting rendering does not change even though the SO’s coordinates are now different.
And furthermore if the SO contains non-text vector content that will reflect those transformations while the text seems unaffected.
(You using the term »move« instead of referring to a ransformation lead to my misunderstanding.)
I guess that the PDF rasterization team’s choice on this might qualify as unexpected bahviour indeed.
Edit: Though as far as I understand it might also be a property of pdf that they have no influence over …
One work-around might be applying Effect > Path > Outline Object in Illustrator – the text stays editable but the SO will reflect Transformation with sub-pixel offsets.
My guess: text is on purpose synchronized with pixel grids,
in order to guarantee good visual appearance.
In PostScript, vectors can be stroke-adjusted as well
(true/false setstrokeadjust) which is very helpful for thin grids
- vertical and horizontal lines have everywhere the same width.
Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann
An interesting interview with John Warnock, Adobe Co-founder:
(bold by me)
"The second [technological development] was the font problem.
The highest resolution printers at that time were 300 spots to the inch. If you represented characters as outlines the obvious [way], the fonts looked terrible. The sampling artifacts [the side effects of digitization] were horrendous. We knew that no publication or office environment would live with that.
We had to solve the font problem. [Stanford University computer scientist] Don Knuth worked on it for years and years and years, trying to get good looking fonts for TeX [digital typesetting software] and he never succeeded.
I had a sort of backward idea of how to do it. If you put down the outline of the character [on a low resolution device] the rasters [the lines the device is able to render] don't line up -- you will get some staffs that are 2-pixels wide and some that are 3. It makes the fonts look horrible.
The very simple idea is: Rather than figuring out what dots to turn on, you stretch the characters so that they line up with the rasters. So if you had the left side of the [letter] 'n' and the right side of the 'n' -- all you have to do is make sure that they are in phase with the frequency of the rasters and then cache that character. That guarantees that all the staffs are uniform thickness and all the x-heights hit at the right place. It turned awful looking fonts into incredible looking fonts."
Gernot, I really think this is a bug and not a feature.
I mean, the preference is clearly there for those who need it to disable pixel grid snapping but in this case the preference is simply broken.
And the real problem is that snapping doesn't guarantee good rendering because not all fonts are perfectly aligned to the pixel grid.
Here is a font I'm working with right now. It's a client's logo font.
The top version is a text object and the bottom is an outline object.
Look at how shoddy the capital letters look on the text object. The version I aligned manually is clearly sharper and I could make it even better still if I tinkered with it more.
And this is at big font sizes. At small font sizes it gets even worse and manual control becomes even more essential.
have you posted over at http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/
We get mixed signals from Adobe... Chris Cox has said that if bugs are reported here they'll get seen. Feature requests, however, seem to need popular support before they'll even be considered, which is what all the voting stuff is about over on photoshop.com.
OK, sorry for confusing the issue.
Edit: Unlike for other Adobe applications it seems one cannot file a bug report for Photoshop on
but is instead directed to