Channel9 met with Bill Hill and the ClearType team again and see what's the latest with the fonts in Windows Vista. They talk about trends in display resolution, research done in aesthetics and quite a few other things.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
The screenshot really doesn't work unless your monitor is just like mine, or else you will see halos, blurriness, etc. Like I've said, you have to tweak it specific to your monitor.
As far as kerning, I don't see what you're talking about. The kerning looks fine to me, even when looking for it.
The FreeType image WAS with sub-pixel rendering, same monitor.
People DO agree that ClearType looks better with small font sizes, because it DOES. If you want a mac user who agrees, well here: http://www.macobserver.com/columns/devilsadvocate/2003/20030523.sht...
FT with antialiasing beats CT. FT with antialiasing and subpixelrendering beats CT even more. At least on my monitor using 98 DPI (98 DPI and 101 DPI gives the same amount of scaling - was to lazy to click 3 more times;)
Maybe on your system, with your eyes, it does. You can't simply blanket it and say it straight out beats ClearType though. Again, it's subjective.
You are making claims that CT handles this and that poorly, but I can't see what you are speaking of, nor have I ever seen anyone else make these claims. Could you make be more specific, with some examples?
BitStream Vera fonts are rendered very poorly on XP and 2K3. Windows2000 actually does it more correct, however less beautiful.
I use bitstream on Windows and it renders just fine.
Compared with Windows2000 XP and Win2K3 clearly have much more crisp fonts. But they lose to FT and Mac OS X which are both clearly more sophisticated (using subpixel rendering AND antialiasing).
ClearType does use both. It also emphasizes contrast to trick the eyes.
Member since:2005-10-02
WARNING: I'm very picky with font rendering. Very picky.
Actually ClearType does NOT use antialiasing with subpixel rendering. Look here with the OS X vs. XP comparison:
http://www.xvsxp.com/fonts/
You've found one mac user (ooohhh... most mac users are of the opposite opinion, but that's to be expected) who thinks XP does a better job, but looking at those screenshots, it's clear to me why CT is bad to my eyes.
Look at the screenshot, the XP windows, Arial 8 point, the word "QUICK" ... Baaaad hinting... baaaaaad hinting. The I is too far away from tthe U and far too close to the C.
Mac handles this better. I prefer the Mac screenshot because it does the things more correctly. And with a more crisp look (in my eyes).
I have major issues with CT not only on this monitor, but also on the LCD-monitors at the college. I use CT none-the-less because with XP is unusable with CT. Fonts are extremely ugly and even worse hinted than with CT. On that account Win2K did a better job.
There is however, some weird stuff going on with the Mac rendering of Tahoma Bold. That's baaaaad too.
Stuff like that makes me turn up'n'down (I told you I was picky about fonts).
Member since:2005-08-12
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-02
This is not the reason.
Windows renders most fonts badly, especially unhinted fonts.
Vera is not unhinted. It's hinted like a PostScript font (just like OpenType CFF). This works well with FreeType, and other renders optimized for Type1 fonts.
Take Windows XP or 2003 Server, or even Windows 2000, and see how poorly it renders even Microsoft fonts, not to mention OpenType CFF fonts which are claimed to be supported on Windows.
All smart renders optimized for postscript fonts will render Vera in a beautiful way.
Actually most Microsoft fonts renders better with FreeType after conversion to OpenType CFF than they on Windows.
Whether they are more beautiful is a different issue, but they render a lot more correct (which is beautiful to me).
Member since:2005-07-14
I have to agree. Comparing three types:
WinXP with "standard method to smooth edges of screen fonts"
WinXP with CT
X.Org with FreeType, default settings for AA
on an: 14.1" 1024x768 LCD,
X.Org with FreeType wins.
On WinXP with "standard",all my fonts are visibly edgy, especially in tight corners in "s", "p", "w".
WinXP with CT makes me feel dizzy. _ALL_ letters are totally unsharp and I too see the violet halo around them. Monospaced fonts are acceptable, but the kerning seems to be wrong with variable-width fonts. Too many letters are too close each other, for my taste. I'm not sure what the theory of kerning says, but I definitely do not like the "T" and "Y" in "PuTTY" touching each other.
So when working in WinXP, I can either be dizzy or use fonts, which have no visible AA at all. Great 
.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-10-02
The osnews_ft.png picture is with FreeType with BCI enabled. And it has a much more correct rendering btw. It doesn't have the blurry edges from ClearType, nor does it suffer from primitive incorrect letterspacing as well as wrong kerning.
But it's true alright that in these pictures ClearType letters have a nicer shape. Unfortunate letterspacing and kerning is bad with ClearType. And very visibly (at least to my eyes - but I also know it's there) is the purple halo around the letters.
What kind of antialiasing was used on the FreeType image? And are we talking 8 point unscaled?
One thing which annoys me with FreeType is the errors in rendering the upper arm in minor 'k' in Tahoma (small fontsizes - especially 8 point).
Subpixel rendering is possible with FreeType as well, with better quality because it is based on antialiazing AS WELL as subpixel rendering. Just like on Mac OS X.
People don't agree that ClearType gives more crisp fonts than on OS X. At least I haven't heard a single font designer from the Mac-world praising ClearType at all.
FT with antialiasing beats CT. FT with antialiasing and subpixelrendering beats CT even more. At least on my monitor using 98 DPI (98 DPI and 101 DPI gives the same amount of scaling - was to lazy to click 3 more times;)
When comparing CT and FT as well as Mac OS X fontrender, you have to compare all possible combinations.
CT loses due to lack of real antialiasing, while FT and Mac OS X wins due to strength of combined antialiasing and subpixeling.
In Gnome you have 4 possible options for fontrendering:
1) Monochrome - no antialiasing at all
2) Best shape - 256 greytone antialiasing (better than anything on Windows earlier than XP)
3) Best contrast - Somewhere in between 1 and 2.
4) Subpixelrendering - includes subpixelrendering as well as antialiasing. Beats the crap out of ClearType and is rivalled only by Mac OS X.
Besides that, there are issues like hinting, kerning and letterspacing, and here CT is clearly a big time loser, in regard to OpenType CFF, PostScript fonts (Type 1) and TrueType (including OpenType CFF) fonts with limited use of instructions.
BitStream Vera fonts are rendered very poorly on XP and 2K3. Windows2000 actually does it more correct, however less beautiful.
Compared with Windows2000 XP and Win2K3 clearly have much more crisp fonts. But they lose to FT and Mac OS X which are both clearly more sophisticated (using subpixel rendering AND antialiasing).