ClearType vs Standard Font Smoothing

[richleader]

Hey all, I haven't been around here much lately, but I just finished a mini article for my site comparing ClearType to standard font smoothing on Windows. It's pretty low key and I wrote it mainly for my friends and family who have been asking me about it, but I figured I might as well post a link. I'm sure it's not news to anybody here, but there's a decent head to head comparison shot:

http://www.richleader.com/cleartype.htm

 

[drewdogg808]

nice article...i've been using cleartype for awhile, and i think it looks great.

 

[rbV5]

Nice work on the article, I've been using Cleartype as well, it makes the text more readable with TV-out.

 

[oldfart]

Are there any hacks/utilities to get ClearType in Win2K?

 

[LongCoolMother]

when i put on clear type. my text gets all disoriented looking..it gives me a headache...

 

[Daovonnaex]

<< Hey all, I haven't been around here much lately, but I just finished a mini article for my site comparing ClearType to standard font smoothing on Windows. It's pretty low key and I wrote it mainly for my friends and family who have been asking me about it, but I figured I might as well post a link. I'm sure it's not news to anybody here, but there's a decent head to head comparison shot:

http://www.richleader.com/cleartype.htm >>

That was a thoroughly-researched and well written article. While I did not gain any new knowledge, it was still a fine read. I commend you.

 

[richleader]

Hey, thanks all. I've made some readability changes, but added a small section that may be of interest to OldFart.

I'm unaware of any hacks, but I have a feeling that you don't have a need for cleartype (from the added section):

-------

Whether or not standard font smoothing is enabled for a certain size character seems to be dependant upon screen resolution. These seem to be the smallest size character to be smoothed on various popular resolutions:

1600x1200 9pt.
1280x960 12pt.
1024x768 16pt.
800x600 22pt.
640x480 12pt.

This data set is problematic as only 1600x1200 is capable of smoothing 10pt. fonts, which should be considered the realistic small to average size character that web designers are creating their pages to be read at. While nearly all video cards today can display 1600x1200, few mainstream monitors can sustain a high enough refresh rate to make that resolution comfortable to use, let alone readable on anything less than a 19? monitor. The minimum font size for standard smoothing for 1024x768 and 800x600 are shameful--it would be rare to encounter a font that large during normal web browsing that was not created as a bitmap image to begin with. 640X480, on the other hand, seems to be doing things right and I cannot imagine why the other resolutions are not following its lead.

What this means practically, is that if your computer is set at an extremely low resolution of 640x480 (which is no longer available in Windows XP) or at an extremely high one of 1600x1200 or above, standard font smoothing is likely to be more attractive on your CRT display because of the absence of colored fringes and smoother large characters. For the rest of us at the center of the bell curve, ClearType is the only way to go.

-----

Based on your posts, I'm assuming you run at 1600X so standard seems to do a better job, overall.

As for longcoolmother--you might want to try that link I posted to the cleartype faq, it lets you pick from a variety of anti-aliasing setups, one might be easier on your eyes, or not. YMMV, but that's what this is all about.

But thanks for the comments, all.

 

[oldfart]

<< 1600x1200 9pt.
1280x960 12pt.
1024x768 16pt.
800x600 22pt.
640x480 12pt. >>


I run 1152x864. Whats the scoop with that res?

 

[richleader]

12 pt. Or technically 11pt., but that doesn't seem entirely relevent, but you're functionally at the same place as 1280x960.

Someone from Nvnews pointed me here: http://www.offroadsearch.com/software/cleartweak/

it does pretty much the same thing as the microsoft app from the NT faq, but you don't need a web connection to use it and it gives you more than 6 settings for "contrast" which really effects how the anti-aliasing is performed.

[edit to linkify]

 

[manly]

While some will disagree, ClearType is primarily beneficial for LCDs. It effectively triples the effective resolution along one axis; can't recall if that's vert or horizontal. If so-called ClearType makes it to Linux (and preliminary support is there), my next display will definitely be an LCD.

I'm not aware there are any hardware advantages with ClearType on CRTs, so unless there are some other advantages, then it's not worth much (many users said it just introduces blurriness on CRT monitors). I believe CRT TVs are different though. In fact, the core hardware tweak in ClearType was used in the Apple IIe outputting to a low-res TV.

Also, if a slightly magnified picture of glyph on a CRT shows any of the color guns (RGB) leaking through, then the problem is likely poor convergence. In which case, ClearType isn't really the correct solution.

But I'm not a expert, so congrats to anyone who is pleased w/ the results.

 

[Sunner]

ClearType reminds me alot of the font smoothing in KDE.

Looks a bit wierd though, sorta like when you're really drunk...

 

[azkiwi]

<< Are there any hacks/utilities to get ClearType in Win2K? >>



I've been wondering this too. Is there some basic OS reason why ClearType will never be able to work with 2K?

 

[AaronP]

good read bro, I learned something new!

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Nice article!
I've been using cleartype for a couple of months now. It's especially good on my Flatpanel monitor, makes life much more enjoyably. That said, it's still good on a CRT.

Anyone know what the CPU overhead is like for cleartype? There's got to be some processing involved somewhere along the line.

 

[azkiwi]

<< I've been using cleartype for a couple of months now. It's especially good on my Flatpanel monitor, makes life much more enjoyably. That said, it's still good on a CRT. >>



All the designers of this system say that it has only a marginal effect on CRTs (due to some anti-aliasing if I recall correctly) so I don't understand why folks see big differences in their CRTS. Can anyone explain?

 

[richleader]

It has a "marginal" effect (and if you'd read my article ) because there is no marginal increase in resolution as a CRT still has to render an effective whole pixel on the edges of the font. On the other hand, it can make up for some of the incompetencies in standard font smoothing routines where characters under an arbitrary size are not smoothed.

And to bump my own thread and borderline spam, I've got a new article up about the old SideWinder gamepad from MS:

http://www.richleader.com/sidewinder.htm