1 person found this helpful
I can only offer what I have heard since I haven't had a need for them myself... if you don't need some specific functionality offered by TLFTextFields that classic TextFields do not provide, use classic Textfields.
If they are provided they should work, I've never had a problem with TLFTextfields in CS5.5... I work with dsigners that are very picky when it comes to typography and the TLFTextdields offer the fine tuning I need.
Yep - same problem here. I'm getting designs with speicifc fonts and spacing and finding it infuriating to try to replicate it. I have to put it on the stage, have it look ugly, test it (where it renders correctly), find out how far off I was with my tracking or whatever, and re-doing it. TLFTextfields are kind of important for us!
CS5.5 never had this problem, so it's doubly frustrating. CS6 so far hasn't offered improvements for my workflow at all.
I am having a similar issue with Arial Regular. When it is larger than say 14pt it becomes obvious that the font is being stretched. Here's two comparative images.
To be clear, I am embedding DF4 Arial as an external font swf for the TLF example. The TLFTextField is generated dynamically at runtime for player 10.2 in a pure actionscript project.
Did any of you guys make any progress on figuring out why the rendering is strange?
TLFTextField is the whole new path forward that replaces the classic TextField. The rendering is completely different. The real question is, which font looks closer to what Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign produces than comparing apples to oranges (Classic to TLF).
Someone post a Photoshop to TLF to Classic comparison (we know photoshop will antialias better and be thicker but whatever).
Win 7 64 SP1, Flash Pro CS5.5, Photoshop 64 CS5.1 Extended:
Here you go,
I would still say the TLF render looks wider and stretched. The Classic render is actually slightly thinner that the Photoshop version.
So, all this is interesting but how do I find out if this is just how it is with TLF or if there is something that can be done?
I just saw your images. They are sooo similar to each other compared to what I am getting. I am using Mac OS X Lion and Arial Regular (not bold).
They're pretty dead on, agreed. I was suprised myself because some other fonts I use (non-standard) render quite differently, especially on a baseline. Here's a picture of a custom sans font in bold made specifically for a company I work for and also it's TTF not OTF.
I do the same 3 lines which look pretty similar but you can see the TLF is slightly different. What's different in this picture is I included a screenshot of the text selected in flash to see the bounds and the baselines. You can see the vast different between TLF and Classic on the baseline. The text is rendering much higher in TLF.
Everyone else at my agency uses OS X so I know your pain. I constantly open files and all of the fonts are screwed up. The person working on the flash document needs to export it themselves because Mac and Win work so wildly differently with fonts.
i can confirm this as well. in both mac os 10.7 and 10.8. this works fine in cs5.5. in cs6 authoring tool, fonts seem confused as to what to display when tlf:
rockwell font, against color and blank white (upper line in each group = classic, lower = tlf: regular, bold, extra bold)
screenshot from flash authoring canvas:
screenshot from swf (still in the flash authoring tool, just testing movie)
looks like in authoring tool canvas, tlf bold version is defaulting to the extra bold face, and they all look a bit bolder than the classic.