Where to get AA fonts for new Rockbox 3.8

[gbl08ma]

I just added DroidSans to the list of available AA fonts for download on my website.
All I did was taking [St.]'s ZIP file, repackaged it (added a .rockbox folder at the top to allow fool-proof-install-by-unzipping-at-root-of-player , and added font information according to the one found on http://www.google.com/webfonts/family?family=Droid+Sans&subset=latin

CRC failed in one of the files (can't remember which exactly, I think it was one higher than 40px) while unzipping using Gnome's default archive manager, I tried with Ark (KDE default) and it seemed to unzip without errors (but it might only have silenced the error).
Feedback is, again, nice to have. You can post a reply at my site if you feel like you're creating too much offtopic at this forum, but remember that I only repackaged things, [St.] did the conversion.

[bluebrother]

And btw, I compiled convttf for users unable to do so themselves:

Nice to see my work to make convttf build with VS was of some use I've created a binary of convttf build with MinGW (the main advantage is that this doesn't require msvcrt90.dll. Most computers should have this but it's not shipped at least with Windows XP): http://www.alice-dsl.net/dominik.riebeling/rockbox/convttf.zip

I've also noticed something interesting: when converting a font with your binary the result looks too narrow. The output created with convttf binaries I built myself (MSVC2005 and MinGW) looks more correct -- see the screenshot from the e200 sim. Did anyone else also notice such a difference? I've used DejaVuSans.ttf for this. Any idea what's the difference? Which version of freetype are you using?

[Progweed]

Nice to see my work to make convttf build with VS was of some use

Hehe… Thanks for your effort, I appreciate it! 

I used the latest FreeType 2.4.4 and I have no idea where that difference comes from. I noticed several fonts turning out too narrow. But others (e.g. Calibri Bold) look simply amazing, esp. on real hardware.

[gbl08ma]

Are you sure you didn't forget to add the -c parameter?
-c is, IIRC, the parameter that defines the space between characters. And I'd say the differences between these fonts have to do with in-between character space.
-c1 for smaller font sizes, -c2 for bigger sizes, -c3 for even bigger sizes, etc.

[bluebrother]

I used the latest FreeType 2.4.4 and I have no idea where that difference comes from. I noticed several fonts turning out too narrow. But others (e.g. Calibri Bold) look simply amazing, esp. on real hardware.

Hmm, strange. I thought I used the latest freetype as well but it's in fact 2.3.12 -- seems I messed things up and used the latest 2.3. Will try with 2.4.4 later.

Are you sure you didn't forget to add the -c parameter?

Why would I need to use that? I can't specify additional spacing for applications using freetype to render fonts, and I expect that to look "good" as well. Therefore I expect not to need to pass any parameters to convttf to make the font look usable. Besides, I used all three variants of convttf the same way and I would expect them to give the same output, at least from the point of what I can recognize when looking at the rendering.

[gbl08ma]

bluebrother: I always used the -c1, -c2, etc. parameter as on the revision 29523 http://svn.rockbox.org/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=29523 the log says that "the parameter that works best is -c1 or -c2 (2 for larger font sizes)".

I assumed that -c0 is no spacing between characters, -c1 is one pixel spacing, -c2 is two pixel spacing, etc.