I don't know about anyone else, but I actually prefer OS X's default "CRT" antialiasing mode for use with both my LCD Cinema Display and my PowerBook's built-in LCD display. The other settings look especially odd with inverse text, such as highlighted menu items.
If i set-up my font smoothing too high, it makes me really dizzy, for real, i can't focus on the letters, my eyes hurt, and i feel like i had few beers 2 much.
Similar to ichroma, anti-aliased fonts on my TiBook 667 never looked right to me. They were always blurry, no matter the alias-type settings, color settings, etc.
I noticed someone mentioned SuperCal. I downloaded it, spent about 20 minutes intricately working through all of the color calibration settings.
Now, my fonts look GREAT! I am impressed. I am sending money to the author now. I had always hated using my internal screen for reading, now, it is clear to my eyes.
So, ichroma, download SuperCal, take the time to get the settings just right, and see if it makes a difference. It did for me. And to dubbel69, thanks for pointing out this program.
copy Charcoal from MacOS 9 to /system/library/fonts
type "defaults write.GlobalPreferences AppleAntiAliasingThreshold 72"
type "exit"
type "defaults write.GlobalPreferences AppleAntiAliasingThreshold 72"
close Terminal
reboot
Use tinkertool to set Charcoal as the system font
Use supercal to calibrate your display
A lot of the anti-aliasing is gone.
I use a high quality NEC LCD with MacOS9 it is very nice.
But it isn't half as nice when using OSX.
I decided to switch back to MacOS9 and decided not to buy a macintoch again until there is an option to disable anti-aliasing in OSX.
I now have bought a Windows machine and I start to like it more and more for its crisp and clear display. Windows XP also has an option to turn on anti-aliasing but it is disabled by default.
I have never seen a windows user who enabled it.
Even the latest redhat ships with anti-aliasing but at least that can be switched off.
I don't understand why people like anti-aliasing it makes a crisp and clear LCD a fuzy CRT.
I really hate anti-aliasing and wish it was never invented.
thanx dubbel69 and atomicham for your comments and help. due to apple's peculiar act of corporate vandalism, re: anti-aliasing, i've spent little time with osx. how do i enable the root account to carry out some of the routines proposed? ho hum, the mac used to be really user friendly.
amorph, i take many of your points regarding our topic and look forward to the fabled improvements - when they come along. for the moment however, i'm surprised there isn't a greater "swirl of controversy" around this question. it seems to me that a lot of users remain in a state of denial regarding the poor text display capabilities of osx. or maybe as apple positions its products as more "digital hub" than superlative graphics machine the user base has changed and display capability matters less?
i'm surprised there isn't a greater "swirl of controversy" around this question. it seems to me that a lot of users remain in a state of denial regarding the poor text display capabilities of osx.
We have 100 users and not one has complained about 'fuzzy' text.
And why are we in denial because we like antialiasing?
I absolutely blows my mind that anyone would want anti-aliasing turned off!
I think I see the "problem" here.. People want to see jaggie fonts. they feel that if something is smooth or rounded, the it it is fuzzy and not sharp. they want to be able to see each pixel in the text, they probably jack up the sharpness too high on their tv sets too so everything almost has an outline on it.
To you!!! Please accept the fact that humans are different and have different views, opinions, and taste.
I think this:
Is much much better than this:
The first one actually looks like the font.
i have tried not to personalise this debate but i really think it's you who must do the accepting of diffferences. you cite 100 users as some kind of proof that i've got it wrong. i reckon they must all be wearing iGlasses or iSpeX, apple's latest accessory that helps users see the world its way.
personally, i don't need to see on screen an emulation of the printed page. i'm happy enough to read text that has good edge definition and looks clear on screen. i just don't see your preferred example in that way. to me it looks low contrast, blurred, out of focus. i buy a top quality lcd screen only to end up looking at something that emulates a low-grade crt display. go figure the logic in that. i can't.
i have tried not to personalise this debate but i really think it's you who must do the accepting of diffferences. you cite 100 users as some kind of proof that i've got it wrong.
I have in no way said that you've got it wrong - you're the one saying that people who like anti aliasing are nuts, and I'm 'personalizing the debate' because you don't want to accept that people have different views and opinions.
Quote:
Originally posted by ichroma
i reckon they must all be wearing iGlasses or iSpeX, apple's latest accessory that helps users see the world its way.
See? When do you start calling us zealots?
Quote:
Originally posted by ichroma
personally, i don't need to see on screen an emulation of the printed page.
Personally I and many other Mac OS X users like it - accept it. People are different.
I have in no way said that you've got it wrong - you're the one saying that people who like anti aliasing are nuts, and I'm 'personalizing the debate' because you don't want to accept that people have different views and opinions.
See? When do you start calling us zealots?
Personally I and many other Mac OS X users like it - accept it. People are different.
why cite 100 satisfied users if it wasn't to prove that i'm the one who's out of step?
my over-zealous attempt at a joke. sorry.
i don't have any kind of problem with difference. if you're happy with anti-aliasing as it's presently implimented well and good. i'm not and i heartily dislike being denied any choice in the matter.
One way to think about antialiasing a signal is to start with the original, continuous signal, and lowpass filter it so that you don't have any energy above the nyquist limit. Then, you sample the lowpass-filtered signal. In practice, this is usually approximated by supersampling and averaging nearby samples.
Quote:
Originally posted by drumsticks
Thanks dfiler for the links. However, I still say that the term "anti-aliasing" is not quite right...
We start off with [in theory] an infinitely high resolution image or font, then we sample it at 72dpi squares (the pixels). Taking only the center values of these squares and painting the rest of the square with the same center color, we get the jaggy edges - aka the aliasing effects.
The so-called "anti-aliasing" algorithm really just takes the [possibly weighted] average value over the entire square and paints the entire square with that average color. The final sampling is still at 72dpi.
It's just a different method of getting the final pixel values. The term "anti-aliasing", IMO, is misleading and the cause of my confusion.
Comments
If i set-up my font smoothing too high, it makes me really dizzy, for real, i can't focus on the letters, my eyes hurt, and i feel like i had few beers 2 much.
:-)
so i stick to CRT.
wooo oooo woooo
I noticed someone mentioned SuperCal. I downloaded it, spent about 20 minutes intricately working through all of the color calibration settings.
Now, my fonts look GREAT! I am impressed. I am sending money to the author now. I had always hated using my internal screen for reading, now, it is clear to my eyes.
So, ichroma, download SuperCal, take the time to get the settings just right, and see if it makes a difference. It did for me. And to dubbel69, thanks for pointing out this program.
Originally posted by dubbel69
Enable the root account on OSX
Open Terminal
type "su" enter the password
copy Charcoal from MacOS 9 to /system/library/fonts
type "defaults write.GlobalPreferences AppleAntiAliasingThreshold 72"
type "exit"
type "defaults write.GlobalPreferences AppleAntiAliasingThreshold 72"
close Terminal
reboot
Use tinkertool to set Charcoal as the system font
Use supercal to calibrate your display
A lot of the anti-aliasing is gone.
I use a high quality NEC LCD with MacOS9 it is very nice.
But it isn't half as nice when using OSX.
I decided to switch back to MacOS9 and decided not to buy a macintoch again until there is an option to disable anti-aliasing in OSX.
I now have bought a Windows machine and I start to like it more and more for its crisp and clear display. Windows XP also has an option to turn on anti-aliasing but it is disabled by default.
I have never seen a windows user who enabled it.
Even the latest redhat ships with anti-aliasing but at least that can be switched off.
I don't understand why people like anti-aliasing it makes a crisp and clear LCD a fuzy CRT.
I really hate anti-aliasing and wish it was never invented.
thanx dubbel69 and atomicham for your comments and help. due to apple's peculiar act of corporate vandalism, re: anti-aliasing, i've spent little time with osx. how do i enable the root account to carry out some of the routines proposed? ho hum, the mac used to be really user friendly.
amorph, i take many of your points regarding our topic and look forward to the fabled improvements - when they come along. for the moment however, i'm surprised there isn't a greater "swirl of controversy" around this question. it seems to me that a lot of users remain in a state of denial regarding the poor text display capabilities of osx. or maybe as apple positions its products as more "digital hub" than superlative graphics machine the user base has changed and display capability matters less?
Originally posted by ichroma
i'm surprised there isn't a greater "swirl of controversy" around this question. it seems to me that a lot of users remain in a state of denial regarding the poor text display capabilities of osx.
We have 100 users and not one has complained about 'fuzzy' text.
And why are we in denial because we like antialiasing?
Originally posted by JLL
We have 100 users and not one has complained about 'fuzzy' text.
And why are we in denial because we like antialiasing?
a) exactly my point.
b) because anti-aliasing - as it is presently implemented in osx - produces text display that looks blurred, low contrast, out of focus . . . . etc.
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
I absolutely blows my mind that anyone would want anti-aliasing turned off!
I think I see the "problem" here.. People want to see jaggie fonts. they feel that if something is smooth or rounded, the it it is fuzzy and not sharp. they want to be able to see each pixel in the text, they probably jack up the sharpness too high on their tv sets too so everything almost has an outline on it.
Originally posted by ichroma
b) because anti-aliasing - as it is presently implemented in osx - produces text display that looks blurred, low contrast, out of focus . . . . etc.
To you!!! Please accept the fact that humans are different and have different views, opinions, and taste.
I think this:
Is much much better than this:
The first one actually looks like the font.
Originally posted by JLL
To you!!! Please accept the fact that humans are different and have different views, opinions, and taste.
I think this:
Is much much better than this:
The first one actually looks like the font.
i have tried not to personalise this debate but i really think it's you who must do the accepting of diffferences. you cite 100 users as some kind of proof that i've got it wrong. i reckon they must all be wearing iGlasses or iSpeX, apple's latest accessory that helps users see the world its way.
personally, i don't need to see on screen an emulation of the printed page. i'm happy enough to read text that has good edge definition and looks clear on screen. i just don't see your preferred example in that way. to me it looks low contrast, blurred, out of focus. i buy a top quality lcd screen only to end up looking at something that emulates a low-grade crt display. go figure the logic in that. i can't.
Originally posted by ichroma
i have tried not to personalise this debate but i really think it's you who must do the accepting of diffferences. you cite 100 users as some kind of proof that i've got it wrong.
I have in no way said that you've got it wrong - you're the one saying that people who like anti aliasing are nuts, and I'm 'personalizing the debate' because you don't want to accept that people have different views and opinions.
Originally posted by ichroma
i reckon they must all be wearing iGlasses or iSpeX, apple's latest accessory that helps users see the world its way.
See? When do you start calling us zealots?
Originally posted by ichroma
personally, i don't need to see on screen an emulation of the printed page.
Personally I and many other Mac OS X users like it - accept it. People are different.
Originally posted by JLL
I have in no way said that you've got it wrong - you're the one saying that people who like anti aliasing are nuts, and I'm 'personalizing the debate' because you don't want to accept that people have different views and opinions.
See? When do you start calling us zealots?
Personally I and many other Mac OS X users like it - accept it. People are different.
why cite 100 satisfied users if it wasn't to prove that i'm the one who's out of step?
my over-zealous attempt at a joke. sorry.
i don't have any kind of problem with difference. if you're happy with anti-aliasing as it's presently implimented well and good. i'm not and i heartily dislike being denied any choice in the matter.
Originally posted by drumsticks
Thanks dfiler for the links. However, I still say that the term "anti-aliasing" is not quite right...
We start off with [in theory] an infinitely high resolution image or font, then we sample it at 72dpi squares (the pixels). Taking only the center values of these squares and painting the rest of the square with the same center color, we get the jaggy edges - aka the aliasing effects.
The so-called "anti-aliasing" algorithm really just takes the [possibly weighted] average value over the entire square and paints the entire square with that average color. The final sampling is still at 72dpi.
It's just a different method of getting the final pixel values. The term "anti-aliasing", IMO, is misleading and the cause of my confusion.