 |
 |
Jaguar Text Display (Anti-Aliased) Question (Page 4)
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hey, I just found a nice surprise. More soon.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Charlotte NC USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Have you got a CRT you can attach your laptop too, TN?</STRONG>
Actually, it's a desktop machine with a 800x600 flatpanel monitor from a cash register. But I can see how you didn't suspect that.
Not long ago I had both a CRT and a LCD connected to this machine. The ClearType was almost required, in my opinion, for the LCD to be useable - so I had to enable it. Thankfully, it didn't negatively affect the CRT while ClearType was enabled - but I also don't remember the text looking any better on the CRT with ClearType.
I can understand how you might prefer ClearType on a CRT - since the difference is slight - and in no way 'bad'.
|
|
*empty space*
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
And the point?
Nomatter how many screenshots you post, some of us can still see the colored edges.
Btw. stop calling CT AA since it's a different technology.
|
|
JLL
- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>And the point?
Nomatter how many screenshots you post, some of us can still see the colored edges.
Btw. stop calling CT AA since it's a different technology.</STRONG>
Yeah. Whatever. Go map yourself on a polygon.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Yeah. Whatever. Go map yourself on a polygon.</STRONG>
You just don't want to accept that not all have the same opinion as you, and you obviously don't want to accept that some people can se the colored artifacts.
|
|
JLL
- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>
You just don't want to accept that not all have the same opinion as you, and you obviously don't want to accept that some people can se the colored artifacts.</STRONG>
If it matched his agenda, he'd be all over those artifacts like it was the worst thing ever, and probably throw something in about "fancy physics" and how the programmers should be doing a better job.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>
You just don't want to accept that not all have the same opinion as you, and you obviously don't want to accept that some people can se the colored artifacts.</STRONG>
You're speaking to yourself now! You said that CT didn't work on CRTs at all. That was your position. I not only proved it does but that in some cases it is better than Quartz AA. And the technology was released two years ago. Just like Microsoft mapping apps to polygons four years ago.
Aha!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
You're speaking to yourself now! You said that CT didn't work on CRTs at all. That was your position. I not only proved it does but that in some cases it is better than Quartz AA. And the technology was released two years ago. Just like Microsoft mapping apps to polygons four years ago.
Aha!</STRONG>
1. Please show me where I said that CT didn't work on CRTs at all!
2. Even though you can turn it on it doesn't do what it's supposed to do - CRTs can't do sub pixel rendering, and what you see could be called colored AA.
3. You certainly did NOT prove that CT in some cases are better than AA - YOU think that it looks better and others don't.
4. So what if MS released CT two years ago - so did Adobe with their CoolType. Apple used a similar technology over 20 years ago.
5. Why can't you accept the fact that I can see the colored artifacts?
|
|
JLL
- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>
5. Why can't you accept the fact that I can see the colored artifacts?</STRONG>
Erm, because you are full of shite and can never admit that Apple is not always an innovator. What's more, you're a computer worshipping idiot who chases me around whenever you see any slight criticism of OSX.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Erm, because you are full of shite and can never admit that Apple is not always an innovator. What's more, you're a computer worshipping idiot who chases me around whenever you see any slight criticism of OSX.</STRONG>
Oh, you couldn't find a post where I said that CT didn't work on CRTs at all, and all you can do is attack me?
Who's flaming here? Please try and read my posts in this thread and show me where I've bad mouthed Windows concerning CT - all I've been saying is that I don't like it because of the colored artifacts.
I even said that Apple should use it in Mac OS X if they gave the user the possibility to turn it off and use AA instead.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]
|
|
JLL
- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Cleartype on Windows XP is indeed very impressive. It is 100% meant for LCD screens simply because of the fact that it was designed around that technology. CT on CRT improves on simply no smoothing whatsoever simply by default because without any form of smoothing it looks nasty.
In windows XP there is an additional font smoothing method called "standard", there is this AND Cleartype, have you tried the standard font smoothing which was designed for use on ALL displays?
Kelly, you've also got to remember that what anyone else says is there opinion, if they say they can see the red/green or blue around the edge of the text, so what? If you think CT improves on nothing, which is so obviously does, then use it.
As for my opinion I prefer Cleartype in Windows XP on an LCD, I've got an LCD iMac and I simply prefer the font smoothing on my VAIO laptop.
I also read something a few threads back about two forms of AA on OS X, Quartz and another, could someone clarify between the two?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Of course Microsoft innovates.
But if you compare the amount of innovation coming from Microsoft to amount of innovation from Apple, taking into account the respective size and resources of the two companies... It's embarassing. To hear Microsoft defend itself in court for 'the right to innovate'...  This is *not* what drives the heart of Microsoft, and everyone knows it.
This is not say that innovations don't seep through -- it's company full of very, very smart people. But MS management is concerned primarily w/ priority no. 1 -- maintaining their position of power.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus  Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, MN, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
This thread is borderline. Stop the flaming now.
Question for Kelly: Why do you use Grab instead of Cmd-Shift-3?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Xeo:
<STRONG>This thread is borderline. Stop the flaming now.
Question for Kelly: Why do you use Grab instead of Cmd-Shift-3?</STRONG>
Because I'm a doofus and keep forgetting.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>
Oh, you couldn't find a post where I said that CT didn't work on CRTs at all, and all you can do is attack me?
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</STRONG>
You son of a *****. You told me to prove with pics that Cleartype improved font readability on CRTs because you said that there was 'no effect' or 'placebo effect' (you mentioned it twice two pages ago) and now you dare to show this face. You're beyond just a computer worshipping moron.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, MN, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Because I'm a doofus and keep forgetting.</STRONG>
---
OK, I read a bit more of this thread and I must say, it would have been closed by the end of the first page. Things were getting out of hand. Things seemed to calm down and the thread jumped back on topic. Now, it's merely on the edge.
Please, understand this: Everyone has opinions and are able to express them. If person A likes hotdogs and person B doesn't, it's not up to person B to make person A dislike them. Not in the same way this thread has been going, anyway.
---
Kelly, when you say, "The screen shots look exactly like they do on screen," did you look at them on an LCD at all? Is it possible that on an LCD, those shots would look like ClearType on an LCD? I don't know anything about this stuff and so I'm genuinely asking. I'm on an LCD and I don't know if I'm getting the "full CRT effect."
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
You son of a *****. You told me to prove with pics that Cleartype improved font readability on CRTs because you said that there was 'no effect' or 'placebo effect' (you mentioned it twice two pages ago) and now you dare to show this face. You're beyond just a computer worshipping moron.</STRONG>
Please find my posts where I said that. The only thing I asked you was to show the pics that you promised earlier, but if you want to freak out because of that, then so be it.
This name calling is really, really childish, and it must be very hard for you to interact with the real life out there. Grow up!!
Xeo, close this thread, please!
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]
|
|
JLL
- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
font readability on CRTs because you said that there was 'no effect' or 'placebo effect' (you mentioned it twice two pages ago) and now you </STRONG>
It was me who chimed in with placebo effect...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Xeo:
<STRONG>
-
---
Kelly, when you say, "The screen shots look exactly like they do on screen," did you look at them on an LCD at all? I"</STRONG>
I already mentioned that I see XP laptops every week and am surprised that it worked on a CRT when for months I was told it doesn't. I was also told, on these forums, for months that XP was slow, there was no open GL, etc etc. All rumors and misinformation by fanatics. XP is very good. OSX needs work but should be just as good come September.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by mbryda:
<STRONG>
It was me who chimed in with placebo effect...</STRONG>
Thanks. I just checked and it was you and Homer who said I just 'WANTED' it to look better and that it was placebo. I then said I would post pics and then JLL said I chickened out and ran away and challenged me to post pics. So he backed you up and thus took your position which he should not have if he wanted to challenge me.
Cleartype works on CRT. That's concluded. It certainly is better than not using it at all.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>So he backed you up and thus took your position which he should not have if he wanted to challenge me.</STRONG>
Is that a threat?
Stop telling me what i mean and what opinions I have.
|
|
JLL
- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by JLL:
<STRONG>
Is that a threat?
Stop telling me what i mean and what opinions I have.</STRONG>
Threat?
Yawn.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, MN, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Kelly, you didn't answer my question. I merely wanted to know if those screen shots... the ones that were posted on this page which you stated to look exactly as they do when live on screen, look the same on both CRTs and LCDs or if they are different.
Also, Kelly, you swore and went on at JLL about something he didn't even say after he asked you to point out where he said it. Then you go so far as to say, "Well, he took that position!" when he didn't. He never mentioned that he agreed it wouldn't work on CRTs. I think you could own up to your mistakes and apologize to the man.
Please, I'm giving this thread one last chance. It seems to be a topic people like to discuss so let people discuss it. Stop letting this become a 1v1. If you can't let it go right now, it's dead. End of story.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Xeo:
<STRONG>Kelly, you didn't answer my question. I merely wanted to know if those screen shots... the ones that were posted on this page which you stated to look exactly as they do when live on screen, look the same on both CRTs and LCDs or if they are different.
</STRONG>
Well, from what I have seen it looks slightly more blurred (more like OSX's) on XP laptops. But I've seen them with the Luna theme and wallpaper. When those are activated then drop shadows are turned on. I don't like shadows on my text and just feel that with the Classic theme th text looks much better.
Look at this pic taken with the shadows enabled.
http://www.a.dallarosa.btinternet.co.uk/shadowtext.jpg
On a CRT it looks exactly like the pic (except for the compression artifacts). On an LCD the text is slightly more smoothed but that doesn't mean better.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Well, from what I have seen it looks slightly more blurred (more like OSX's) on XP laptops. But I've seen them with the Luna theme and wallpaper. When those are activated then drop shadows are turned on. I don't like shadows on my text and just feel that with the Classic theme th text looks much better.
Look at this pic taken with the shadows enabled.
http://www.a.dallarosa.btinternet.co.uk/shadowtext.jpg
On a CRT it looks exactly like the pic (except for the compression artifacts). On an LCD the text is slightly more smoothed but that doesn't mean better.</STRONG>
I'm not trying to flame anyone here, just state obvious facts. I easily see massive amounts of color artifacts in that screen grab, and the text looks very blurry. I was thinking this could easily be caused by .jpg compression, so I went into my roomates room and checked XP with cleartype on his 24" Sony CRT, and I can see a rainbow effect around all of the text. In fact trying to read the text hurts my eyes, it is very muddy and blurry.
I'm not trying to prove that AA is better than CT to Kelly, that can't be done. I'm saying flat out that a number of people can see the rainbow problem, and dislike CT on a CRT, that is not arguable. Kelly, it's great you don't see that stuff so you can enjoy your display, but stop trying to convince everyone else that CT looks great on a CRT. Truthfully I question your vision and perception of color, but to each their own.
-matt
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hm...for some reason I couldn't really see the color shifting before, but on this screenshot it looks pretty obvious to me, on the red side. I can't personally really see the blue, but there's definitely red on the left...it's most noticeable for me in the control panel's menus: the H in Help (very left edge) T in Tools, F in File, etc...personally, I don't think this would bug me much if I were using a computer that did that, but I can see that it could be problematic for more visually sensitive people.
And no, it doesn't take superhuman vision to be bugged by things like this...everyone's different. My sister's bugged by the tiniest sounds...
I don't think this looks really bad but I don't think it looks better than Quartz AA. But I have indeed noticed that small fonts in Quartz AA tend to look like they are greyish rather than black.
I do definitely prefer a font-smoothing scheme that works in both horizontal and vertical direction, but I suppose one that only affects the horizontal would be somewhat better than nothing.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by OoklaTheMok:
<STRONG>
Hm...for some reason I couldn't really see the color shifting before, but on this screenshot it looks pretty obvious to me, on the red side. I can't personally really see the blue, but there's definitely red on the left...it's most noticeable for me in the control panel's menus: the H in Help (very left edge) T in Tools, F in File, etc...personally, I don't think this would bug me much if I were using a computer that did that, but I can see that it could be problematic for more visually sensitive people.
</STRONG>
It's strange. Do this test. Say there is coloration and then look at the text. Then say there is no coloration and look at the text again. It seems to be more about focus. If you look for tiny bits of color then maybe the focus brings the color out. If you aren't aware of it then you don't look for it and don't notice it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Seattle
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by OoklaTheMok:
<STRONG>I don't think this looks really bad but I don't think it looks better than Quartz AA. But I have indeed noticed that small fonts in Quartz AA tend to look like they are greyish rather than black.</STRONG>
AA will make smaller fonts gray (if it's black on white), as when the stroke doesn't cover the whole pixel, the color value is 'pro-rated' to how much of the pixel is covered by the text. If the vertical bar of an I is only wide enough to cover half the pixel, then the pixel will be 50% black and 50% white.
The same thing happens in real life. If text is pure black, but really, really small on white paper, you perceive it as gray. It's just a lot more pronounced on a screen with a much lower dpi than you're used to looking at.
~BS
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Seattle
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
It doesn't matter what technique is used to smooth fonts, whether coloration or greyscale pixels are used. How does it appear to the naked eye at the desktop resolution without zooming in? It looks pretty damn good.</STRONG>
Kelly:
Look at text on a black background with CT. Is that a 'feature'? Is it because "...Windows allows user to dynamically change color sets quickly"?
Moki:
I know it's pretty possible you haven't wasted much time reading through Kelly's personal jihad against all that is X, or maybe just have the self restraint to not feed the troll. You're a better man than I.
But if you happen to see this, I am truly interested in the question I posed for you earlier and Xeo restated.
How faithfully is a screen grab reproduced on another monitor? Snapz guys have anything to say on this?
~BS
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
It's strange. Do this test. Say there is coloration and then look at the text. Then say there is no coloration and look at the text again. It seems to be more about focus. If you look for tiny bits of color then maybe the focus brings the color out. If you aren't aware of it then you don't look for it and don't notice it.</STRONG>
So, are you saying that if you personally look for it, you can see it?
I don't find it a stretch at all to believe that some people would see it right away whether they look for it or not, some people would see it only if they look closely, and some people really wouldn't notice it at all. I wouldn't assume that everyone perceives it exactly the way you do...it's human nature to believe that the majority holds the same opinion as we do about all sorts of issues, when the opposite is often likely the case.
Personally, for example, I have a narrower green color range than most other people seem to have (and green's my favorite color...). There are things that I'd definitely say are green and so would my friends. There are other things that I'd identify as blue (or more blue than green) that my friends identify as green (or more green than blue). There are things I'd identify as brown (or more brown than green) that my friends would identify as green (or more green than brown). Does this mean I'm colorblind? I wouldn't call it that, because I can see the color. My vision is merely ideosyncratic in the green range, varying slightly from average. Everyone has idiosyncrasies; that's just the way the world works.
CT was not created with looking good on CRTs in mind, but if using CT on CRTs looks good for some people, that's great for them. It doesn't mean they're wrong or people who say it doesn't look good are wrong, it just means that their vision is idiosyncratic.
So far it appears the majority of people who have responded to this thread don't think ClearType looks good on CRTs. That doesn't necessarily mean they're just mac zealots who hate Windows XP. It may mean that they're not benefitting from idiosyncratic vision which makes ClearType look good to them on CRTs even though it was not designed to do so.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Erm, because you are full of shite and can never admit that Apple is not always an innovator. What's more, you're a computer worshipping idiot who chases me around whenever you see any slight criticism of OSX.</STRONG>
First of all Apple invented ClearType (different name obviously) and they don't use it... that should tell you something!
<STRONG>Regardless, I am still waiting for BS and JLL to provide evidence that the naked eye can see the coloration and 'vertical jaggies' without zooming in. They only have to take the pics I have posted and circle a couple of examples.</STRONG>[/QUOTE]
The evidence is in your own screenshots... the colors on the sides of the letters are very obvious, ugly, and distracting to me. I don't like AA on OSX much, but I HATE that crap you are so impressed with. The rainbow text looks terrible to me. And I don't have to circle every single letter in your shots to prove it... you obviously can't see it and obviously can't be shown or taught anything. (See an eye doctor though).
<STRONG>Without zooming you can see the color in my screen grabs? you can see verticle jaggies too? You must have frigging amazing vision. </STRONG>[/QUOTE]
I can't help but see the colors. VERY distracting and hard to read. My vision is OK but I'm a more than a little worried about yours.
<STRONG>No, I said the screenshots look exactly how the actual desktop looks. Some might insinuate that the screen grabs are digital and that does not reflect the CRT display. That's a wrong assumption to make. I really can't figure out how Cleartype would be better on an LCD than a CRT. The video signal sent and the pixels filled around the fonts would be exactly the same in either case. From what I have seen that is correct. The only downside to CRT is that they will always be more stressful on the eyes due to refreshing, radiation and reflection (aka RRR).</STRONG>[/QUOTE]
WOW! I always wondered if you really were as smart as you act when I saw you debating the experts on every aspect of computer hardware and software. I didn't know enough about most techical subjets to determine if you were full of hot air or not (and if you'll notice I kept my mouth shut - an example you might want to follow). With this thread you've proved you don't know anything except whatever thought pops into your head. You really should read up on some of this stuff before you go on and on for 4 pages spouting incorrect information all the while insisting that you know it all. A little actual knowldege won't kill you.. although it might just change your mind.
|
I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well I haven't been following this whole thread, but the screenshot that KH just posted has some obvious flaws. Seems like ClearType is good on curves approaching the vertical, but falls down on nearly horizontal lines.
Check out the 'S' (I cut this out from the screenshot):
The horizontal stroke in the middle of the s is very blocky - as if no font smoothing is being done at all.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: el_humpo ]
|
|
Is this rock and roll, or
a form of state control?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by el_humpo:
<STRONG>Well I haven't been following this whole thread, but the screenshot that KH just posted has some obvious flaws. Seems like ClearType is good on curves approaching the vertical, but falls down on nearly horizontal lines.
Check out the 'S' (I cut this out from the screenshot):
The horizontal stroke in the middle of the s is very blocky - as if no font smoothing is being done at all.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: el_humpo ]</STRONG>
I really can't see anything to complain about.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by el_humpo:
<STRONG>Well I haven't been following this whole thread, but the screenshot that KH just posted has some obvious flaws. Seems like ClearType is good on curves approaching the vertical, but falls down on nearly horizontal lines.
Check out the 'S' (I cut this out from the screenshot):
The horizontal stroke in the middle of the s is very blocky - as if no font smoothing is being done at all.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: el_humpo ]</STRONG>
Yup, looks like a black dot in the middle of the 's'. Almost a stylized 's' from a different font alltogether.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Jeez. Where is this horizontal stroke? I can't see a blob or horizontal stroke in the middle of either 'S'. Is this something to do with monitors?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
OK, now I see what you are talking about. But by God do I have to look pretty damn close to notice something like that!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
I already mentioned that I see XP laptops every week and am surprised that it worked on a CRT when for months I was told it doesn't. I was also told, on these forums, for months that XP was slow, there was no open GL, etc etc. All rumors and misinformation by fanatics. XP is very good. OSX needs work but should be just as good come September.</STRONG>
You really need to get your facts straight (that irks me to no end):
1) XP Is slow on older hardware. Just as OSX is slow on older hardware.
2) You were told that the nVidia drivers that ship with XP on the XP CD do not support OpenGL.
That is also a fact. You have to download the nVidia drivers from nVidia for OpenGL. Again, easily verifiable by nVidia and/or MS.
3) The indented effect of ClearType DOES NOT WORK ON CRT'S! No matter how much you want it to or say it does. This is easily verifiable by numerous sources, including MS. It does do something on CRT's, but it's not the intended result. Hence IT DOES NOT WORK. It would be like running your gasoline engine on Diesel. It may run, but not run well at all.
Believe me, I'm no fanatic - just someone with 10 years experience in the business. So I do know what I'm talking about - It's my job to know what the heck I'm talking about.
-Matt
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
OK, now I see what you are talking about. But by God do I have to look pretty damn close to notice something like that!
The effect is pretty apparent on my Pismo's LCD. All of the ClearType fonts have nice smoothing in the vertical strokes of the letters, but the horizontals seem to be problematic.
Perhaps it's due to the alignment of the LCD's RGB sub-pixel elements that ClearType uses for smoothing.
|
|
Is this rock and roll, or
a form of state control?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: /(bb|[^b]{2})/
Status:
Offline
|
|
el_humpo: that's precisely why. cleartype works best on vertical strokes, due to the fact that lcd subpixels are vertically aligned (luckily, vertical strokes are where text needs aa most).
as for the argument about whether or not Cleartype AA works on crts or not, go here and read a whitepaper on Adobe's subpixel rendering implementation, Cooltype. Here's what it's got to say about Cleartype/Cooltype on CRTs:
CRT pixels, by comparison, consist of rounded red, blue and green phosphor dots that are packed into triangular arrays, often surrounded with a matrix of black. They just don't slice as neatly. This is not to say that ClearType and CoolType won't work on CRT monitors - they will indeed, but the overall effect is only somewhat better than the grayscale anti-aliasing used, for example, by Adobe Type Manager� (ATM�), Apple's OS 9, or Microsoft Windows.
Also, it's worth noting that you're not stuck with the default settings with cleartype, it's possible to adjust the contrast level of it, with a simple online applet here. it offers six pre-defined levels to choose from, so if the default settings don't look too good with your monitor/gamma settings/etc, you can select one that does:
(the default settings seem to be optimised for the windows default gamma, 1.0, but at 1.8, they looks awful)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fort Worth, TX, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Erm, because you are full of shite and can never admit that Apple is not always an innovator. What's more, you're a computer worshipping idiot who chases me around whenever you see any slight criticism of OSX.</STRONG>
Hey KH, I also said that I can quite easily see the rainbows on the text - I even provided an example, using an image posted earlier, that it was very noticeable to me on the double Ls in dallarosa and the i in Find (or whatever it was).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arlington, Tx
Status:
Offline
|
|
Kelly,
Think of Clear Type as like the old Dolby Noise Reduction on cassette tapes. If you recorded the tape with DNR on, you could then turn it on during replay and have less noise. Of course, even if you didn't record in Dolby you could still turn it on during replay. It would not reduce noise, but it would effect the sound quality. Most wouldn't like the distortion, but some might.
CT on CRT simply adds color noise to the outside of the pixes, blurring them in color. For people who hate jaggies, and like regular AA, they may like that, but most would prefer a designed solution. Regular AA does not just blur the fonts in general, but adds gray at certain designed locations to decrease the jaggies.
(This does not say that CT isn't a marvelous solution on LCD's for which ist was created.)
You could certainly see how people who don't AA because it looks blurry, or who don't like subpixel rendering because they can see the colors, would HATE CT on a CRT.
And no, CT really does have a very different effect on LCD's and CRT's in so far as what gets displayed.
So you like blurred fonts. Fine. Most people would prefer full AA to that, but some people like photos being soft focused, so, to each his own.
-R
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Aqua's font display is by far the best I've seen so far, on any screen. Of course it's too blurry if your screen is not set correctly, but that's another story...
Font display depends heavily on screen resolution a.k.a. dpi - a real smoothing method changes its behaviour with font size, and the difference in size between 24 point Arial on a TiBook 500 and 24 point Arial on a Dell UltraXGA+ laptop is striking.
The pix once again made me wonder how disgusting the Windows GUI looks (any version, Luna is a joke) � it a shame. Hey a zillion people including me spend years looking at this disaster.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status:
Offline
|
|
Kelly, I changed my mind. I will post an example of the flaws I see in cleartype. I've clipped a little text from your screenshot and pointed out the 50 worst examples of the rainbow blurring that I see. Hopefully at only 200% magnification even you can see there are a lot more on every single letter. Maybe your screen is blurry enough that you can't see it or maybe your eyes really do need a checkup. Or maybe CRT's make it impossible to notice the rainbows. I think I read on one website that since CRT's can't address 1/3 of a pixel Cleartype just comes off as a poor-man's antialiasing. Maybe XP automatically senses that you are using a CRT and sets itself for AntiAliasing already and that is what you've been raving about this whole time. Maybe after 10 more pages of foot stamping and name calling the answers will be clear. (Clearer than your type looks to me on my LCD anyway!)
I found the closest type font I could to yours, and while at first it looks like a bigger font size than yours, on the second line you can see that the letters are the same height, and 5 lines of mine fit into the same space as your because I reduced the line spacing. I'm no fan of AntiAliasing, but I certainly like it better than the rainbows! What do you think (besides that I am an Apple suckup?)
|
I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fort Worth, TX, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by John Tewksbury:
<STRONG>Or maybe CRT's make it impossible to notice the rainbows.</STRONG>
Perhaps on an actual XP system, but not on my Trinitron CRT. I saw the colors in KH's images, and I see the same in yours.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
I not only proved it does but that in some cases it is better than Quartz AA. And the technology was released two years ago. Just like Microsoft mapping apps to polygons four years ago.</STRONG>
Kelly, I'm writing this on my XP box (with 17" CRT).
I've just turned on ClearType, and I'm sorry to say: you're right. 
In fact, both sides are right: CT on a CRT looks very nice, sharp, and antialiased at the same time (OSX has only 2 out of 3 here), but it also tends to have coloured edges that, depending on font size, background colour etc, are more or less annoying.
(e.g: typing this in the forum form looks horrible, but surfing Macromedia in another window is very nice indeed, with much better readability than OmniWeb on my TiBook 800.)
Can we go back now to civilized behaviour everyone? 
|
|
MBP 15" 2.33GHz C2D 3GB 2*23" ACD
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by workerbee:
<STRONG>
Kelly, I'm writing this on my XP box (with 17" CRT).
I've just turned on ClearType, and I'm sorry to say: you're right.
In fact, both sides are right: CT on a CRT looks very nice, sharp, and antialiased at the same time (OSX has only 2 out of 3 here), but it also tends to have coloured edges that, depending on font size, background colour etc, are more or less annoying.
(e.g: typing this in the forum form looks horrible, but surfing Macromedia in another window is very nice indeed, with much better readability than OmniWeb on my TiBook 800.)
</STRONG>
And my CRT is a 21 inch with 120 DPI set. Can you use 120 DPI on your CRT and tell me what difference it made? Go to Display Properties>Setting>Advanced>DPI Setting.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Trafalmadore
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG> XP is very good. OSX needs work but should be just as good come September.</STRONG>
Both need work! XP can be very problematic with some older computers and even new Dells. I know first hand as I recently installed around 20 new P4 2ghz Dells in our business. OS X can be difficult too.
And what's up with the Start menu in XP? It is absolutely horrible looking at lower screen resolutions <1024x768.
KH, M$ states that CT does indeed have an effect when using a CRT, but not the intended one as on a LCD as others have noted in this thread. Gamma adjustment and monitor settings can have a dramatic effect too! YMMV
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
KellyHogan - XP is very good.
You obviously do not use XP to try and do real work. XP is a POS.
Even hard core PC users admit this to me all the time.
I use XP everyday at work and i also have a 2.2Ghz P4 dell at home. i can crash
XP and force the need for a shut down doing many things i have since learned to
avoid like mad because XP is such a POS.
I'm talking the need for a shut down because of total lock out and all ports frozen
and usb tanked etc... no telnet in either...
I send crash reports into M$ and app makers at least once a day.
In fact i just sent in 15 minutes ago a windows media player crash report
because it hosed the GUI after trying to play a bad avi file. I'm talking total fubar
and need to shut down and power back on because of a bad avi file.
LOL what a POS. The same avi file would not play in QUICKTIME os x either
but nothing crashed.
Sure OS X has it's problems but over all IMHO even 10.1.4 is better than XP
big time.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top