5 ms·

Thank you for your explanations. I particularly like your comment on down scaling the triple resolution. Actually I am using a Retina display. I’m still notici

Thank you for your explanations. I particularly like your comment on down scaling the triple resolution. Actually I am using a Retina display. I’m still noticing the difference very much. Hence I don’t think subpixel rendering would be only a technique for obsolete devices. But I don’t think subpixel rendering is a performance issue, my MacBook Pro running 10.11 displays everything fast even though being 6 years old. And if the complications were already there, perfectly working, why remove them? I understand that it is hard to add these features into the iOS libraries, but then the others should have been kept as is.

galad87 6y ago
It wasn't "perfectly working", there was a lot of text on translucent views either looking horrible or changing antialiasing type when animated on macOS.
- xenonite 6y ago
  I was not aware of that. On the other hand, I am mainly looking at static text with opaque background (including PDFs). At least there, the subpixel hinting would benefit the keen readers' eyes.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    If you're reading a ton of PDF's, try comparing Acrobat Reader with Preview -- they use entirely different font rendering. Preview is unhinted undistorted macOS rendering that preserves exact letterform positioning and widths, while Acrobat uses hinting to distort letterforms but align closer to pixels. If you're really looking for maximum crispness you might prefer Acrobat. It makes subpixel rendering unnecessary for all perfectly vertical and horizontal strokes, since it's trying to avoid antialiasing them in the first place.
    - xenonite 6y ago
      Indeed, Acrobat rendering is vastly superior in that respect. Thank you for that mentioning that. Apart from the Acrobat solution, on macOS 10.11, it is possible to turn off text smoothing in Preview.app's PDF settings (which retains subpixel rendering). This gives, to my eyes the best PDF rendering that macOS had up to now.
maskros 6y ago
Retina and other Hi-DPI displays don't generally use the RGB column layout that ClearType and other subpixel rendering algorithms abuse to provide higher luminance resolution. Using ClearType on a PenTile or AMOLED display is just going to give you color fringing with no actual increase in resolution.
- xenonite 6y ago
  Indeed. On the other hand, all Mac displays and almost all external desktop displays provide the RGB pattern. Otherwise, there is still the option to disable the sub pixel antialiasing.
crazygringo 6y ago
> Actually I am using a Retina display. I’m still noticing the difference very much. I'm curious why you think you notice a difference? Macs have never had subpixel rendering for Retina, so if I'm understanding you correctly, it's not something you could know from experience. Why do you think it would make a difference you could notice if they did? (And of course, Retina rendering is far sharper than lo-dpi subpixel rendering.) I suppose you might be able to take an image of subpixel-rendered text e.g. at 24 pt, scale the bitmap to 50% width/height on a Retina display, and put it next to the same text at 12 pt, and see if you could tell the difference. Although you'd need to be careful to get the same precise vertical baseline alignment.
- xenonite 6y ago
  Using a macro lens, I took photographs of text on macOS 10.11. I don't know where your statement is originated. But here, the text is indeed displayed with subpixel rendering – on a Retina display.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    Apologies, you're correct -- my information was wrong. [1] Now I'm curious to experiment myself to see if I could tell the difference! And congratulations on your excellent eyesight. :) The only seeming authoritative source I could find that justifies why it was ultimately removed is from an "ex-macOS SWE" here [2]. [1] https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/8277/how-does-apples-retina-display-affect-sub-pixel-rendering https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/8277/how-d... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477526
nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
> Actually I am using a Retina display. I’m still noticing the difference very much. I suspect you are not running at the "correct" 2X Retina resolutions, which for whatever reason are no longer the default on Apple Macbooks. Instead, they end up running at a 1.75x or 1.5x of native resolution, which results in slightly less crisp rendering for everything, not just fonts.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  I wish Apple would fix this so 1.75x or 1.5x were equally crisp. The solution is conceptually simple: just like the iPhone X renders at 3x, Macs should be able to render internally at 3x as well, so that downsampling to 1.75x or 1.5x will still have full detail, zero blurriness. I wonder if the reason it can't is performance, if it's battery, or if there isn't enough memory on the video card or something. But seeing as MacBook Pros can support multiple 4K monitors... it seems like the memory and performance are there, no?
  - sgerenser 6y ago
    What you are describing is essentially what MacOS does. E.g. on a Retina display with a 2880x1800 screen, Apple used to render “2x” assets to a 2880x1800 buffer, so that it has the same amount of space as a 1x 1440x900 screen. If you want more space (which is now the default), it renders using 2x assets to a 3400x2000 or 3840x2400 buffer (these numbers are approximate), then scales it down to 2880x1800. So it’s never scaling anything up, only down. Of course it’s still not as sharp as rendering at the native resolution. Using 3x assets wouldn’t help unless the actual resolution of the screen was higher.
    - crazygringo 6y ago
      Do you have a source for that? Because I'd love if that were true, but every explanation I've seen contradicts that. The default isn't more space, as you write -- it's actually less space, for bigger elements. Which is why you would need to render at more than 2x. It does, indeed, scale up -- there are plenty of articles from when Retina's scaling options came out that state it does lead to a slight amount of blurriness because of this. To be clear, under Display > Scaled, the "More Space" option is true 2x retina, while "Default" through "Larger Text" are the ones that upscale. You can actually verify this yourself -- it you take a screenshot of any UX element at "More Space", and then take a screenshot of the same element at "Larger Text", they're pixel-for-pixel identical. For everything less than "More space", MacOS is scaling up.

galad87 6y ago

It wasn't "perfectly working", there was a lot of text on translucent views either looking horrible or changing antialiasing type when animated on macOS.

xenonite 6y ago
I was not aware of that. On the other hand, I am mainly looking at static text with opaque background (including PDFs). At least there, the subpixel hinting would benefit the keen readers' eyes.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  If you're reading a ton of PDF's, try comparing Acrobat Reader with Preview -- they use entirely different font rendering. Preview is unhinted undistorted macOS rendering that preserves exact letterform positioning and widths, while Acrobat uses hinting to distort letterforms but align closer to pixels. If you're really looking for maximum crispness you might prefer Acrobat. It makes subpixel rendering unnecessary for all perfectly vertical and horizontal strokes, since it's trying to avoid antialiasing them in the first place.
  - xenonite 6y ago
    Indeed, Acrobat rendering is vastly superior in that respect. Thank you for that mentioning that. Apart from the Acrobat solution, on macOS 10.11, it is possible to turn off text smoothing in Preview.app's PDF settings (which retains subpixel rendering). This gives, to my eyes the best PDF rendering that macOS had up to now.

maskros 6y ago

Retina and other Hi-DPI displays don't generally use the RGB column layout that ClearType and other subpixel rendering algorithms abuse to provide higher luminance resolution. Using ClearType on a PenTile or AMOLED display is just going to give you color fringing with no actual increase in resolution.

xenonite 6y ago
Indeed. On the other hand, all Mac displays and almost all external desktop displays provide the RGB pattern. Otherwise, there is still the option to disable the sub pixel antialiasing.

crazygringo 6y ago

> Actually I am using a Retina display. I’m still noticing the difference very much. I'm curious why you think you notice a difference? Macs have never had subpixel rendering for Retina, so if I'm understanding you correctly, it's not something you could know from experience. Why do you think it would make a difference you could notice if they did? (And of course, Retina rendering is far sharper than lo-dpi subpixel rendering.) I suppose you might be able to take an image of subpixel-rendered text e.g. at 24 pt, scale the bitmap to 50% width/height on a Retina display, and put it next to the same text at 12 pt, and see if you could tell the difference. Although you'd need to be careful to get the same precise vertical baseline alignment.

xenonite 6y ago
Using a macro lens, I took photographs of text on macOS 10.11. I don't know where your statement is originated. But here, the text is indeed displayed with subpixel rendering – on a Retina display.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  Apologies, you're correct -- my information was wrong. [1] Now I'm curious to experiment myself to see if I could tell the difference! And congratulations on your excellent eyesight. :) The only seeming authoritative source I could find that justifies why it was ultimately removed is from an "ex-macOS SWE" here [2]. [1] https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/8277/how-does-apples-retina-display-affect-sub-pixel-rendering https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/8277/how-d... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477526

nuclear_eclipse 6y ago

> Actually I am using a Retina display. I’m still noticing the difference very much. I suspect you are not running at the "correct" 2X Retina resolutions, which for whatever reason are no longer the default on Apple Macbooks. Instead, they end up running at a 1.75x or 1.5x of native resolution, which results in slightly less crisp rendering for everything, not just fonts.

crazygringo 6y ago
I wish Apple would fix this so 1.75x or 1.5x were equally crisp. The solution is conceptually simple: just like the iPhone X renders at 3x, Macs should be able to render internally at 3x as well, so that downsampling to 1.75x or 1.5x will still have full detail, zero blurriness. I wonder if the reason it can't is performance, if it's battery, or if there isn't enough memory on the video card or something. But seeing as MacBook Pros can support multiple 4K monitors... it seems like the memory and performance are there, no?
- sgerenser 6y ago
  What you are describing is essentially what MacOS does. E.g. on a Retina display with a 2880x1800 screen, Apple used to render “2x” assets to a 2880x1800 buffer, so that it has the same amount of space as a 1x 1440x900 screen. If you want more space (which is now the default), it renders using 2x assets to a 3400x2000 or 3840x2400 buffer (these numbers are approximate), then scales it down to 2880x1800. So it’s never scaling anything up, only down. Of course it’s still not as sharp as rendering at the native resolution. Using 3x assets wouldn’t help unless the actual resolution of the screen was higher.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    Do you have a source for that? Because I'd love if that were true, but every explanation I've seen contradicts that. The default isn't more space, as you write -- it's actually less space, for bigger elements. Which is why you would need to render at more than 2x. It does, indeed, scale up -- there are plenty of articles from when Retina's scaling options came out that state it does lead to a slight amount of blurriness because of this. To be clear, under Display > Scaled, the "More Space" option is true 2x retina, while "Default" through "Larger Text" are the ones that upscale. You can actually verify this yourself -- it you take a screenshot of any UX element at "More Space", and then take a screenshot of the same element at "Larger Text", they're pixel-for-pixel identical. For everything less than "More space", MacOS is scaling up.