Version: 0.5.7 (using KDE KDE 3.5.7) Installed from: Debian testing/unstable Packages OS: Linux I use a lot of pdf files for my daily work and while I welcomed the new version of kpdf (0.5.7 in kde 3.5.7), in particular for the antialiasing of graphics, I was very disappointed with the handling of fonts. Not that it has changed over the previous versions, but I noticed that the new version of Evince (that I have on the same system) has a very good font rendering, different from kpdf. Don't these two apps use the same rendering engine? Anyway, if you had any doubts, be sure that the way evince renders fonts is way better; it is now the level of adobe reader! Thanks for your great work!!
Can you please attach: a) The pdf file b) kpdf screenhost c) evince screenshot
Created attachment 20837 [details] This is a pdf document that will display fonts differently between Kpdf and Evince
Created attachment 20838 [details] screenshot of document in Kpdf
Created attachment 20839 [details] screenshot of document in Evince
Created attachment 21212 [details] snapshot-pdf.png Hi! Viewed your pdf-file, everything is fine. It looks like either not all needed fonts are installed (the document was created on a Windows machine) or it might be xft-related or your system isn't configured properly. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be KPDF's fault. In the attachment you'll find a screenshot of your pdf-file.
"... (the document was created on a machine with an Apple OS) ..." sorry about that )
well frankly, I don't really see what could be the problem with my Debian configuration... As I said, the fonts are displayed very nicely with Evince. Did you try to open the same document side by side with kpdf and evince? I'm sure you'll see what I'm referring to. I think it's a small difference in the way evince handles fonts that make documents more pleasant to read... I'll keep you updated as soon as I test that on a different system (Ubuntu).
I have the same problem (the document looks for me just like in michel's screenshots). While this is not deadly, it's also very unpleasant since after the recent update that allows anti-aliasing of graphics, I really want to use kpdf as the primary pdf viewer, but it's not as easy on the eyes as acroread and evince because of the fonts. It would be great to figure out what the problem is. Could it be related to the fact that for the attached document when the zoom level is set to 100% the page in kpdf is about 600px wide (612 or so), while both in evince and acroread it's about 840px wide at 100% zoom? Even if it's unrelated, why is this so? What is the actual meaning of the zoom level? P.S. I'm using kpdf 0.5.7 (from kde 3.5.7) on ArchLinux.
well, what could be the problem with your configuration... that's a really general question. What's your X.Org version? Which fonts are installed on your system? Yes, I opened the same document side by side with kpdf, evince, xpdf, acroread. All of them handled it a bit differently but all were fine. Therefore it is imho not a KPDF problem.
What fonts need to be installed? Although, the fact that evince is showing things correctly suggests to me that KPDF may be at least partially at fault here.
Not at all - recent Evince versions use a different renderer (based on Cairo), so their result as _for sure_ different than xpdf/KPDF. Now, what is left is determine why the KPDF rendering would be "poor" (in case it is); does xpdf 3.02 (not any prior version) show the same result of KPDF 0.5.7?
I took another look at the document and it has all the needed fonts embedded in it so no other fonts are necessary for displaying it properly. Let's just compare some versions (although I'm using openSuSE rpms it could be at least an indication for a possible problem): xpdf-tools-3.01 xorg-x11-libs-7.2 fontconfig-2.4.1 freetype2-2.3.5 kpdf-0.5.7 Additionally, you could try something different: create a new user, log in as that new user, open the document and post here the result.
Sorry for the delay. I sent an email reply right away, but apparently it didn't go through: ------------------------------------ To Pino's question: xpdf 3.02 renders the file differently on my machine than kpdf 0.5.7. xpdf's rendering of the fonts looks good. To Patch's question: I have the following packages installed whose names resemble those that you've listed: xpdf 3.02_pl1-1 xorg 11R7.0-1 (this is a dummy package, so I'm not sure if it's relevant) xorg-server 1.2.0-5 xorg-server-utils 1.0.3-6 fontconfig 2.4.2-1 freetype2 2.3.5-1 kdemod-kdegraphics-kpdf 3.5.7-3 poppler 0.5.9-1 poppler-qt 0.5.9-1 By the way, never mind the last number in the version number; it's ArchLinux's internal counter of revisions to the same package. Thanks for your help. Dmitriy
From what I gather, I believe it is not a question of system config since on the same computer font rendering is different between kpdf and Evince. To make sure, I even checked if this font rendering difference was also true on Ubuntu and this was the case. What is surprising is that I don't have xpdf installed (therefore, I am sure that kpdf uses poppler) so it somehow comes from the fact that Evince uses something else on top of poppler to change the way fonts look. I just installed Okular from the experimental repos, hoping there would be an improvement in font rendering but to my dissapointment, the fonts look exactly the same between kpdf and Okular. And let me repeat it again (to answer Patch Linams comment): there is no obvious problem in the way kpdf renders fonts. It is just that Evince does it far better. Perhaps it does the antialiasing differently? In any case, I read pdfs all day long so I know what I'm talking about. And no, this is not just for one type of font but for all the fonts I tested.
Has there been any progress on this? Or what is the current plan for dealing with this problem? I just upgraded to okular (with the upgrade to KDE 4), but the problem remains. So I'm forced back to evince and acroread. Thanks.
> Has there been any progress on this? KPDF is in hard maintaineance mode, that means it will hardly get fixes at this point (especially for bugs like this, where any work would be invasive). > Or what is the current plan for dealing with this problem? From the KPDF side, it is almost a WONTFIX. > I just upgraded to okular (with the upgrade to KDE 4), but > the problem remains. You can upgrade all the Okular versions you want, but that will not fix the PDF rendering, given that Okular does *not* render documents by itself. There's the Poppler library for that, so any issue with rendering is totally Poppler's job (and thus should be reported in its bug tracker, not in KDE's).
Got you. Thanks.
Thank you for your bug report or feature suggestion. The "KPDF" application is no longer maintained, and all tickets are now closed. We recommend to switch to the "Okular" application. Due to the high number of bugs/suggestions in "KPDF" we are not able to go through all of them and verify if they are still valid in "Okular". That's why are we asking you to help us by checking if your bug/suggestion is still valid in Okular and if it still is opening a new bug/suggestion against it. Thank you for your effort in making KDE better :) (This is an automatic message from the KDE bug triaging team)