JLL's point, which concerns the fact that when Quartz rasterizes a vector for display on screen, it uses subpixel rendering to do so, and the result appears antialiased on screen.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Just to take care of the ambiguities:
Quartz only uses sub-pixel rendering (which leaves a slight red-blue fringe) on text. This is because the effect is quite minor and only works from left to right and is most effective when used for black on white or vice versa.
Sub-pixel rendering is a type of anti-aliasing.
Quartz uses standard anti-aliasing for all other vectors it draws.
Those who are interested can investigate with the Pixie application included with the developers tools.
<strong>Yes, so that the people reading this thread could better see the subpixel rendering that Quartz does when rasterizing vectors for screen display. All he did was increase the size of the logical pixels from the physical pixels, to take advantage of the fact that Quartz renders to logical, rather than physical, pixels (see OS X's zoom capabilities). Doubling the sizes of the vectors themselves would have been pointless, because it wouldn't make the pixels any easier to see.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we don't understand each other because we don't know what JLL was really doing:
"It is a screenshot of a vector logo enlarged to 200% in ImageReady to show the antialiasing"
- If "enlarged" means zoomed before taking another screenshot, it's ok (because zooming is most likely nearest neighbor interpolation)
- If "enlarged" means that he doubled the image size using nearest neighbor interpolation, it's ok
- If "enlarged" means that he doubled the size but the default bicubic or bilinear interpolation was used, then it's not ok, because we don't know where the antialiasing is coming from.
I took a closer look at the picture and in fact there are no dots (enlarged pixels) that are smaller than 2x2 real pixels. So nearest neighbor interpolation must have been used, therefore the blur we can see must either have been caused by an interpolation previous to the 200% enlargement or this is in fact an antialiased vector image as claimed by JLL.
<strong>I have the 20" Cinema Display and it is absolutely perfect. I have no fuzziness problems. It is extremely sharp from corner to corner. When I came back to work today, I thought my CRT was fuzzy...
Here are some pics of my cinema display. I can take closeups if you'd like...
I don't think you are getting my point. OS X does not anti-alias EVERYTHING on the screen. I was not disputing that Adobe apps may anti-alias their vectors or any of their drawing elements - that's an app issue.
My point was that, contrary to some posts here, the entire screen is NOT anti-aliased. The guy was saying that EVERYTHING looked blurry. That would NOT be the case on a non-defective LCD. Then some of you came and said that its OS X anti-aliasing.
The entire screen would look like s*** if the entire screen was anti-aliased. OS X by itself only actively anti-aliases FONTS. Anything else is done by the app.
<strong>It's interesting that the original poster hasn't been back here since he started this thread. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think he's too embarrassed to admit he had it set at the wrong resolution.
<strong>I don't think you are getting my point. OS X does not anti-alias EVERYTHING on the screen. I was not disputing that Adobe apps may anti-alias their vectors or any of their drawing elements - that's an app issue.
My point was that, contrary to some posts here, the entire screen is NOT anti-aliased. The guy was saying that EVERYTHING looked blurry. That would NOT be the case on a non-defective LCD. Then some of you came and said that its OS X anti-aliasing.</strong><hr></blockquote>This is what the original poster said:
[quote]The main proble is small to medium text. In Adobe Illustrator and Microsoft word, 12, 14 and even 24pt type looks much fuzzier than on my CRT. Also, if i draw a circle in Illustrator on both displays, the Cinema display shows much more pixel evidence than the CRT. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]I new people would think I was wrong. It is set on the default (highest) resolution. I have fooled around with the display settings. It's the anti-aliasing (font smoothing) that's the problem. It makes the type especially, appear blurry and the consistency of the letter forms changes as you change the point size.<hr></blockquote>The fonts were the main "problem," but he said there was more pixel evidence in graphics. Not fuzziness or anti-aliasing problems. The font problem I believe is clearly sub-pixel AA, and the graphics problem is probably just the increased sharpness of the LCD. At least that's what it sounds like from what he's describing.
i've noticed that if you don't view whatever you're working on in adobe apps at either 25,50, or 100%, graphics tend to look funky....maybe he doesn't how to view at 100%, it is a big lcd after all!!!
<strong>I don't think you are getting my point. OS X does not anti-alias EVERYTHING on the screen. I was not disputing that Adobe apps may anti-alias their vectors or any of their drawing elements - that's an app issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I don't think you are getting my point. OS X does not anti-alias EVERYTHING on the screen. I was not disputing that Adobe apps may anti-alias their vectors or any of their drawing elements - that's an app issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quartz DOES antialias vectors!!!!!!
you bet it does. get one of those new imacs, upgrade to the latest osx "build" and thanx to anti-aliasing, you can have a whole 20" worth of blurry text.
*sigh* Did we really need you to bump a nine-month old thread to complain about Apple's antialiasing? This has nothing at all to do with the display itself being blurry. It's all about personal preference.
Furthermore, this discussion is about Apple's standalone 20" display, not the iMac 20". I'm locking this thread before people start replying, mistaking it for a rant about the new iMac.
I see, based on your other thread that you don't like antialiasing, ichroma. I'm sorry that you don't like the more accurate representation of fonts that Apple has provided, but bumping ancient threads to rant about it isn't the way to go about finding a solution. In fact, you should note that antialiasing in Panther has been further improved.
If you want to complain about it some more, feel free to make a new thread about it. Don't bump really old ones.
Comments
<strong>
JLL's point, which concerns the fact that when Quartz rasterizes a vector for display on screen, it uses subpixel rendering to do so, and the result appears antialiased on screen.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Just to take care of the ambiguities:
Quartz only uses sub-pixel rendering (which leaves a slight red-blue fringe) on text. This is because the effect is quite minor and only works from left to right and is most effective when used for black on white or vice versa.
Sub-pixel rendering is a type of anti-aliasing.
Quartz uses standard anti-aliasing for all other vectors it draws.
Those who are interested can investigate with the Pixie application included with the developers tools.
<strong>Yes, so that the people reading this thread could better see the subpixel rendering that Quartz does when rasterizing vectors for screen display. All he did was increase the size of the logical pixels from the physical pixels, to take advantage of the fact that Quartz renders to logical, rather than physical, pixels (see OS X's zoom capabilities). Doubling the sizes of the vectors themselves would have been pointless, because it wouldn't make the pixels any easier to see.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly
I think we don't understand each other because we don't know what JLL was really doing:
"It is a screenshot of a vector logo enlarged to 200% in ImageReady to show the antialiasing"
- If "enlarged" means zoomed before taking another screenshot, it's ok (because zooming is most likely nearest neighbor interpolation)
- If "enlarged" means that he doubled the image size using nearest neighbor interpolation, it's ok
- If "enlarged" means that he doubled the size but the default bicubic or bilinear interpolation was used, then it's not ok, because we don't know where the antialiasing is coming from.
I took a closer look at the picture and in fact there are no dots (enlarged pixels) that are smaller than 2x2 real pixels. So nearest neighbor interpolation must have been used, therefore the blur we can see must either have been caused by an interpolation previous to the 200% enlargement or this is in fact an antialiased vector image as claimed by JLL.
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: 123 ]</p>
- Take a screenshot of a vector logo.
- Open it in ImageReady.
- Zoom up 200% (not enlarged using Image Size).
- Take another screenshot.
- Post it on AI.
<strong>I have the 20" Cinema Display and it is absolutely perfect. I have no fuzziness problems. It is extremely sharp from corner to corner. When I came back to work today, I thought my CRT was fuzzy...
Here are some pics of my cinema display. I can take closeups if you'd like...
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/vangorkomm/apple/PhotoAlbum45.html"; target="_blank">My 20" Cinema Display</a>
---------
RosettaStoned</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow! Is your office always that neat or did you clean it up just for the picture?
<strong>
Wow! Is your office always that neat or did you clean it up just for the picture?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I guess I wasnt the only guy to notice the "What About Bob" degree of neatness this person went to!
My point was that, contrary to some posts here, the entire screen is NOT anti-aliased. The guy was saying that EVERYTHING looked blurry. That would NOT be the case on a non-defective LCD. Then some of you came and said that its OS X anti-aliasing.
The entire screen would look like s*** if the entire screen was anti-aliased. OS X by itself only actively anti-aliases FONTS. Anything else is done by the app.
Sheesh.
<strong>It's interesting that the original poster hasn't been back here since he started this thread. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think he's too embarrassed to admit he had it set at the wrong resolution.
<strong>I don't think you are getting my point. OS X does not anti-alias EVERYTHING on the screen. I was not disputing that Adobe apps may anti-alias their vectors or any of their drawing elements - that's an app issue.
My point was that, contrary to some posts here, the entire screen is NOT anti-aliased. The guy was saying that EVERYTHING looked blurry. That would NOT be the case on a non-defective LCD. Then some of you came and said that its OS X anti-aliasing.</strong><hr></blockquote>This is what the original poster said:
[quote]The main proble is small to medium text. In Adobe Illustrator and Microsoft word, 12, 14 and even 24pt type looks much fuzzier than on my CRT. Also, if i draw a circle in Illustrator on both displays, the Cinema display shows much more pixel evidence than the CRT. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]I new people would think I was wrong. It is set on the default (highest) resolution. I have fooled around with the display settings. It's the anti-aliasing (font smoothing) that's the problem. It makes the type especially, appear blurry and the consistency of the letter forms changes as you change the point size.<hr></blockquote>The fonts were the main "problem," but he said there was more pixel evidence in graphics. Not fuzziness or anti-aliasing problems. The font problem I believe is clearly sub-pixel AA, and the graphics problem is probably just the increased sharpness of the LCD. At least that's what it sounds like from what he's describing.
<strong>I don't think you are getting my point. OS X does not anti-alias EVERYTHING on the screen. I was not disputing that Adobe apps may anti-alias their vectors or any of their drawing elements - that's an app issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quartz DOES antialias vectors!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally posted by Akac:
<strong>I don't think you are getting my point. OS X does not anti-alias EVERYTHING on the screen. I was not disputing that Adobe apps may anti-alias their vectors or any of their drawing elements - that's an app issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quartz DOES antialias vectors!!!!!!
you bet it does. get one of those new imacs, upgrade to the latest osx "build" and thanx to anti-aliasing, you can have a whole 20" worth of blurry text.
Furthermore, this discussion is about Apple's standalone 20" display, not the iMac 20". I'm locking this thread before people start replying, mistaking it for a rant about the new iMac.
I see, based on your other thread that you don't like antialiasing, ichroma. I'm sorry that you don't like the more accurate representation of fonts that Apple has provided, but bumping ancient threads to rant about it isn't the way to go about finding a solution. In fact, you should note that antialiasing in Panther has been further improved.
If you want to complain about it some more, feel free to make a new thread about it. Don't bump really old ones.