Is cleartype basically anti-aliasing for text?

Farmer

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2003
3,334
2
81
Yes, it is an anti aliasing algorithm, which is really a generic term.
 

xtknight

Elite Member
Oct 15, 2004
12,974
0
71
A better term is probably "subpixel hinting". You may be able to find more info with that.

It's really only meant for LCDs that have a perfect pixel layout. CRTs have triads of pixels that tend to AA normal fonts better. On LCDs things appear harsh, so Cleartype is an effort to use subpixels to raise the resolution of the fonts and provide AA using blending.
 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
239
106
xtknight nailed it - it does not much of anything for CRTs - just LCDs.
 

KoolDrew

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
10,226
7
81
Originally posted by: corkyg
xtknight nailed it - it does not much of anything for CRTs - just LCDs.

I personally always ran cleartype on both CRT's and LCD's. Just looks better IMO.
 

NeoPTLD

Platinum Member
Nov 23, 2001
2,544
2
81
I agreen with Nothinman. Razor sharp text is what I like about LCDs and ClearType does nothing more than defocus it.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Well I do like some hinting, but I've never liked the way ClearType looked. I have medium hinting and grayscale smoothing on my Linux box in Gnome right now.
 

skriefal

Golden Member
Apr 10, 2000
1,424
3
81
Ditto. Looks like an ugly, blurry mess on CRTs and LCDs. I want razor-sharp text, not an attempted approximation of the blurry font rendering that I used to get with a VGA card with crappy DACs and a too-thin low-bandwidth VGA cable.
 

xtknight

Elite Member
Oct 15, 2004
12,974
0
71
Windows' implementation is very poor. Besides, it requires you to adjust ClearType "gamma" or "contrast" properly. Check out Mac and Linux screenshots of good font hinting (keywords "libxft" "cleartype" patch maybe).

Vista's is a little better. But Linux's is razor sharp here. It's nothing like the blur-ridden XP ClearType made for poor quality LCDs. It's just as sharp as it is without the AA, but with smooth edges. There is very little color fringing (only on really small fonts) and no gray blurriness surrounding the edges of fonts. It truly is higher resolution.

Having a properly calibrated monitor helps the blending work more effectively. Both the AA on text and in 3D games will look better.

I happened to have comparisons. Make sure you view these full res.

FF in WXP(default): http://xtknight.atothosting.com/images/wxp_ff_def.png
FF in WXP(ClearType): http://xtknight.atothosting.com/images/wxp_ff_ct.png
FF in Ubuntu(LCD subpixel hinting): http://xtknight.atothosting.com/images/ubu_ff_lcd.png

At first glance, properly tuned XP ClearType doesn't look so bad, but then you look at it for a little longer and your eyes begin to hurt. Granted, Ubuntu was missing some of MS's TrueType fonts so it used only the basic font family of missing fonts.

ClearTweak allows more fine-grained control of XP's ClearType: http://www.ioisland.com/cleartweak/
 

skriefal

Golden Member
Apr 10, 2000
1,424
3
81
The Ubuntu sample still looks a bit blurred, but definitely an improvement over either of the Windows samples.

I assume that the Windows "default" sample is illustrating standard (non-Cleartype) font smoothing? There's definitely anti-aliasing there, so it can't be non-smoothed rendering.
 

potato28

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
8,964
0
0
Ugh how can people use ClearType? I almost couldn't make my way back to find it in the options. The Ubuntu sub-pixel hinting looks good though.
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Originally posted by: NeoPTLD
I agreen with Nothinman. Razor sharp text is what I like about LCDs and ClearType does nothing more than defocus it.

Yep I hate Cleartype ,first thing I make sure is disabled,end of the day its really personal preference.
 

xtknight

Elite Member
Oct 15, 2004
12,974
0
71
Originally posted by: skriefal
The Ubuntu sample still looks a bit blurred, but definitely an improvement over either of the Windows samples.

I assume that the Windows "default" sample is illustrating standard (non-Cleartype) font smoothing? There's definitely anti-aliasing there, so it can't be non-smoothed rendering.

It's standard Windows AA. Without the standard AA it would look awful.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,002
126
Well after trying Cleartype with the rest of Windows it turns out I like it there too on my CRT so I'll be keeping it on.
 

CSMR

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2004
1,376
2
81
It is not AA. AA is useful but cleartype is more useful because it makes use of more information, namely that LCD pixels have subpixels arranged in a certain way of the three colours.

If a pixel is trying to represent black and white components (shapes within it) AA makes it grey but cleartype can make it colourful because it may be lighting up some of the subpixels. It doesn't look colourful unless you stare close-up at the screen because of the way the eye perceives things and the algorithm averages out the colour. I think.

Anyway it's great for LCDs in the right orientation (if your screen is in portrait mode, no luck at present), and inappropriate for CRTs: they should use AA, not cleartype. (But unfortunatly windows doesn't provide the option for normal AA so if you have a CRT or an LCD in the wrong orientation cleartype or blocky text are your only options.)
 

Tegeril

Platinum Member
Apr 2, 2003
2,906
5
81
Originally posted by: xtknight
Windows' implementation is very poor. Besides, it requires you to adjust ClearType "gamma" or "contrast" properly. Check out Mac and Linux screenshots of good font hinting (keywords "libxft" "cleartype" patch maybe).

Vista's is a little better. But Linux's is razor sharp here. It's nothing like the blur-ridden XP ClearType made for poor quality LCDs. It's just as sharp as it is without the AA, but with smooth edges. There is very little color fringing (only on really small fonts) and no gray blurriness surrounding the edges of fonts. It truly is higher resolution.

Having a properly calibrated monitor helps the blending work more effectively. Both the AA on text and in 3D games will look better.

I happened to have comparisons. Make sure you view these full res.

FF in WXP(default): http://xtknight.atothosting.com/images/wxp_ff_def.png
FF in WXP(ClearType): http://xtknight.atothosting.com/images/wxp_ff_ct.png
FF in Ubuntu(LCD subpixel hinting): http://xtknight.atothosting.com/images/ubu_ff_lcd.png

At first glance, properly tuned XP ClearType doesn't look so bad, but then you look at it for a little longer and your eyes begin to hurt. Granted, Ubuntu was missing some of MS's TrueType fonts so it used only the basic font family of missing fonts.

ClearTweak allows more fine-grained control of XP's ClearType: http://www.ioisland.com/cleartweak/
GG to me, didn't read the part where you said Ubuntu was missing some of the fonts because that was the entire point of this post.
 

StopSign

Senior member
Dec 15, 2006
986
0
0
Like people have already mentioned, I prefer sharp text over "smooth" text. First thing I do on any computer build is disable Cleartype or any kind of subpixel hinting. My monitor is also kinda crappy so any kind of smoothing, regardless of how good the algorithm is, will produce funny colors and hurt my eyes.

Really sucks how the default UI font in Vista has Cleartype built in.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,124
787
126
Maybe it's just because I have a pretty good monitor, but i think cleartype in Vista looks pretty good.