4 ms·

the future is still far away. On a 17" 4k screen I could still see the difference.

NavinF 5y ago
This is unfortunately true. Fonts without cleartype are ugly af on my 4K 27” display and it’s very hard to find smaller (higher DPI) displays that support 4K, >60hz, and adaptive sync. I suspect that 8K displays will be “good enough” and 16K will finally make this hack obsolete in a few years, but we’re not there yet.
- maskros 5y ago
  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally can't stand any form of Cleartype-style rendering -- the color fringing stands out terribly. I vastly prefer a somewhat blurrier but stable grayscale than seeing a red-blue shimmer throughout the text. Then again, I use a non-AA bitmap font in my editor, so yeah. Get off my lawn!
  - NavinF 5y ago
    Eh that’s fair. I’m colorblind like 10% of males (and probably >20% of programmers) and I bet this defect in my eyes make cleartype more bearable. I need that subpixel resolution. Hopefully future displays will satisfy a larger proportion of the population.
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  I wonder how much of this is due to Windows font rendering currently being so focused on ClearType. At 4K and 27", you don't need subpixel rendering anymore, because your regular pixels are small enough, but you do still need grayscale antialiasing. As far as I can tell, Windows no longer supports grayscale font smoothing — it's subpixel or nothing, and "nothing" still looks bad except for bitmap fonts being displayed at exactly the size they were designed for.
  - NathanielK 5y ago
    Windows font rendering is surprisingly flexible. When you do the "calubrate cleartype" wizard, it can change many options on a per-monitor basis. You can also directly edit the registry to change the gamma, greyscale/colour, and subpixel order.
athenot 5y ago
This is one reason why I don't like 4k monitors. The pixel density is just awkward. If I use 1 point = 1 pixel, then the UI is way too small. If I run at 1:2, the UI is too big and the screen is effectively a "retina 1080p". And if I try 1:1.5 then the smoothing artifacts are too visible. I ended up solving this with a 5k display at 1:1.6. The smoothing artifacts are below my threshold of perception and all looks nice and smooth, while still having a 3200x1800 usable resolution. Downside: cost.
- jcelerier 5y ago
  I agree. For me the sweet spot right now is 2560*1440 at 1x scaling, and crisp bitmap fonts wherever possible.
  - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    Better yet: HP’s Z27q display. It’s 27 inches and 5K, which is “Retina” to 2560x1440. And I’ve got two of ‘em (…and a 6-head GPU to accommodate their MST cables). I just wish there was a 16:10 aspect ratio option.
    - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
      UPDATE: The "real" 5K HP Z27q model (with 30-bit color and 5120x2880 pixels) was released around 2012-2013 and was discontinued by 2016, which is a shame because it's such an amazing monitor: I imagine they discontinued it because 5K operation requires 2 separate and hefty DP1.2 cables in MST mode, which (at the time) the majority of computers just couldn't handle (I don't think Apple Macs can use it at all), and Windows' support for high-DPI was awful-to-mediocre until Windows 10 came out in 2015 - but they've been fantastic for me. Oh, and it was bloody expensive: each one new was about $1500-2000 IIRC. It seems HP has re-released the Z27q... but in-name-only: the current model is called the "Z27q G3" but it's now just a mid-tier 27-inch 2560x1440 IPS display with no special features beyond DisplayPort 1.4 in-and-out ( https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-z27q-g3-qhd-display https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-z27q-g3-qhd-display ). Originally the "q" in Z27q was for "quad" because the 5K (5120x2880) resolution really was 4x 1280x720 (the OG "high def" before 1920x1080 took-over), but now the "q" stands for "QHD" which doesn't mean Quad-HD dimensions, but just 4x the pixels (which isn't impressive at all: as pixel-count increases squared as length increases). Grumble. Apple still has their own LG-made 5K monitors but they don't play-nice with Windows, and it's even worse with Apple's horrendously priced 6K monitor - but other than that, there's still very few options left for people wanting or needing a large desktop workspace beyond getting a 40-inch 4K display and running it in 96dpi mode.

This is unfortunately true. Fonts without cleartype are ugly af on my 4K 27” display and it’s very hard to find smaller (higher DPI) displays that support 4K, >60hz, and adaptive sync. I suspect that 8K displays will be “good enough” and 16K will finally make this hack obsolete in a few years, but we’re not there yet.

maskros 5y ago
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally can't stand any form of Cleartype-style rendering -- the color fringing stands out terribly. I vastly prefer a somewhat blurrier but stable grayscale than seeing a red-blue shimmer throughout the text. Then again, I use a non-AA bitmap font in my editor, so yeah. Get off my lawn!
- NavinF 5y ago
  Eh that’s fair. I’m colorblind like 10% of males (and probably >20% of programmers) and I bet this defect in my eyes make cleartype more bearable. I need that subpixel resolution. Hopefully future displays will satisfy a larger proportion of the population.
NoGravitas 5y ago
I wonder how much of this is due to Windows font rendering currently being so focused on ClearType. At 4K and 27", you don't need subpixel rendering anymore, because your regular pixels are small enough, but you do still need grayscale antialiasing. As far as I can tell, Windows no longer supports grayscale font smoothing — it's subpixel or nothing, and "nothing" still looks bad except for bitmap fonts being displayed at exactly the size they were designed for.
- NathanielK 5y ago
  Windows font rendering is surprisingly flexible. When you do the "calubrate cleartype" wizard, it can change many options on a per-monitor basis. You can also directly edit the registry to change the gamma, greyscale/colour, and subpixel order.

athenot 5y ago

This is one reason why I don't like 4k monitors. The pixel density is just awkward. If I use 1 point = 1 pixel, then the UI is way too small. If I run at 1:2, the UI is too big and the screen is effectively a "retina 1080p". And if I try 1:1.5 then the smoothing artifacts are too visible. I ended up solving this with a 5k display at 1:1.6. The smoothing artifacts are below my threshold of perception and all looks nice and smooth, while still having a 3200x1800 usable resolution. Downside: cost.

jcelerier 5y ago
I agree. For me the sweet spot right now is 2560*1440 at 1x scaling, and crisp bitmap fonts wherever possible.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  Better yet: HP’s Z27q display. It’s 27 inches and 5K, which is “Retina” to 2560x1440. And I’ve got two of ‘em (…and a 6-head GPU to accommodate their MST cables). I just wish there was a 16:10 aspect ratio option.
  - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    UPDATE: The "real" 5K HP Z27q model (with 30-bit color and 5120x2880 pixels) was released around 2012-2013 and was discontinued by 2016, which is a shame because it's such an amazing monitor: I imagine they discontinued it because 5K operation requires 2 separate and hefty DP1.2 cables in MST mode, which (at the time) the majority of computers just couldn't handle (I don't think Apple Macs can use it at all), and Windows' support for high-DPI was awful-to-mediocre until Windows 10 came out in 2015 - but they've been fantastic for me. Oh, and it was bloody expensive: each one new was about $1500-2000 IIRC. It seems HP has re-released the Z27q... but in-name-only: the current model is called the "Z27q G3" but it's now just a mid-tier 27-inch 2560x1440 IPS display with no special features beyond DisplayPort 1.4 in-and-out ( https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-z27q-g3-qhd-display https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-z27q-g3-qhd-display ). Originally the "q" in Z27q was for "quad" because the 5K (5120x2880) resolution really was 4x 1280x720 (the OG "high def" before 1920x1080 took-over), but now the "q" stands for "QHD" which doesn't mean Quad-HD dimensions, but just 4x the pixels (which isn't impressive at all: as pixel-count increases squared as length increases). Grumble. Apple still has their own LG-made 5K monitors but they don't play-nice with Windows, and it's even worse with Apple's horrendously priced 6K monitor - but other than that, there's still very few options left for people wanting or needing a large desktop workspace beyond getting a 40-inch 4K display and running it in 96dpi mode.