Does Jag use sub-pixel rendering?
The anti-aliasing seems different in Jaguar.
You can sometimes see colors in black and white text. Is this a product of sub-pixel anti-aliasing?
I couldn't find anything about it on the web or on Apple's site.
And what happens when you change "Font smoothing style" in the system prefs.? I don't notice any change.
You can sometimes see colors in black and white text. Is this a product of sub-pixel anti-aliasing?
I couldn't find anything about it on the web or on Apple's site.
And what happens when you change "Font smoothing style" in the system prefs.? I don't notice any change.
Comments
The menu in the prefs changes the level of antialiasing. Sometimes it is very difficult to note the difference.
If you have a CRT, you should use the "standard" setting.
From top to bottom, those use standard (best for CRT), light, medium (best for LCD), and strong.
<a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=6790980235"; target="_blank">web page</a>
It's tough to see the sub-pixelness in those screen shots. You see the colors, but my understanding is that sub-pixel means only 1/3 of the pixel is used.
Are those shots on LCD or CRT? I'm assuming a CRT actually can't do the sub-pixels, is that why they say standard is best for CRT?
<strong>You see the colors, but my understanding is that sub-pixel means only 1/3 of the pixel is used.</strong><hr></blockquote>Here's an explanation.
In an LCD pixel, there are three smaller elements. Blue, green, and red -- usually in that order from left to right. Because these individual elements are actually smaller than one pixel, using them to further increase resolution in images (or text here) is called sub-pixel rendering. This only works on LCD screens because of the way the pixel is separated. In a CRT, all three of these colors are combined and are indistinguishable from another -- they just make one whole pixel.
Sub-pixel rendering only works on images at their original size. When blown up like in that snapshot, the sub-pixels are no longer a third of a pixel, but several pixels in size, like all other points.
Does that make sense? Maybe I should make another diagram... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
every pixel on your monitor is actually three subpixels (red, green and blue). All on for white, all off for black. The mapping of memory to pixels is more precise with LCDs allowing you to control it down to the subpixel level.
If a pixel is red (like on the left of the letters in brad's screenshot) then it means the subpixels are on(red), off (black), off(black). This gives extra width to the black part of the letter but also adds a reddish halo.
Steve Gibson goes into a lot of <a href="http://grc.com/cleartype.htm"; target="_blank">detail</a> but look out: he's a loony!
[ 09-02-2002: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
I'm sure that it, like everything, can be improved of course.
I have a CRT and LCD...
<strong>the sub-pixel font smoothing in OS X needs a LOT of work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you mean that apple's sub-pixel rendering is worse than MS Cleartype and Adobe's Cooltype or do you mean that they all suck compared with standard Quartz AA?
It's possible that because Quartz AA (pixel or sub-pixel) ignores font hinting info that Apple's implementation looks worse because it is designed for higher dpi LCDs. Anyone using it on one of the 'tighter' screens? (I think the new powerbook with the higher resolution and the cinema and cinema HD are all greater than 100 pixels per inch)
Also, if AA or sub-pixel looks bad to you, it is possible you are too close to your screen. Hold out your arm and your fingertips should just touch the screen. I find just a few inches can make all the difference.
<strong>
Do you mean that apple's sub-pixel rendering is worse than MS Cleartype and Adobe's Cooltype or do you mean that they all suck compared with standard Quartz AA?
It's possible that because Quartz AA (pixel or sub-pixel) ignores font hinting info that Apple's implementation looks worse because it is designed for higher dpi LCDs. Anyone using it on one of the 'tighter' screens? (I think the new powerbook with the higher resolution and the cinema and cinema HD are all greater than 100 pixels per inch)
Also, if AA or sub-pixel looks bad to you, it is possible you are too close to your screen. Hold out your arm and your fingertips should just touch the screen. I find just a few inches can make all the difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quartz ignores font hinting? Gee, that would explain a lot! I wonder why they would do that? Hopefully it will eventually be added, of course that would involve a slight speed hit, but maybe it will be offset by a more optimized compiler by the time it's actually implemented.
<strong>Quartz ignores font hinting? Gee, that would explain a lot! I wonder why they would do that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe that Quartz effectively draws all text at four times the size it is needed and then scales it down to achieve its AA.
This means 12 point text is actually 48 point text. Since hints are only usually provided for small text sizes like 9 - 16 pixels there is no gain to using that information.
The trade-off is you sacrifice legible letters for legible words. Personally I think this is worth it because people read word shapes not letter shapes (this is why ALL CAPS IS SUCH A PAIN IN THE A$$ TO READ, all the words are the same shape). It also ensures that your text looks more like it will on paper (i.e at a higher resolution).
<strong>Here's an explanation.
In an LCD pixel, there are three smaller elements. Blue, green, and red -- usually in that order from left to right. Because these individual elements are actually smaller than one pixel, using them to further increase resolution in images (or text here) is called sub-pixel rendering. This only works on LCD screens because of the way the pixel is separated. In a CRT, all three of these colors are combined and are indistinguishable from another -- they just make one whole pixel.
Sub-pixel rendering only works on images at their original size. When blown up like in that snapshot, the sub-pixels are no longer a third of a pixel, but several pixels in size, like all other points.
Does that make sense? Maybe I should make another diagram... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Check out <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/05/2233205&mode=nested&tid=100&threshold=1"; target="_blank">this thread on Slashdot</a>. The article is about the Palm m130 resolution debacle, but there are some pretty in-depth explanations regarding bit-depth, dithering, sub-pixels, LCD/CRT technologies, and some other interesting tidbits. Like most things Slashdot, however, you hafta wade through some BS to find the good stuff.
(tig)
"We do not inherit the land from our ancestors"
"We borrow it from our children"