4 ms·
I'm usually a fan of Windows-style font rendering that snaps on-screen text to the pixel grid. But for this typeface it seems to heavily exaggerate the roughne
by gdwatson 3y ago
I'm usually a fan of Windows-style font rendering that snaps on-screen text to the pixel grid. But for this typeface it seems to heavily exaggerate the roughness as the different serifs snap all over. The pictures of the print pages look much nicer.
How does it look on a Mac monitor?
- dbtc 3y agohttps://imgur.com/a/93x1FZu https://imgur.com/a/93x1FZu non-retina How does it look on windows?
- gdwatson 3y agohttps://imgur.com/a/5UebhP4 https://imgur.com/a/5UebhP4 Something about taking a screenshot on a scaled display makes my first image (at 125% scaling) look bigger than it should be; at 80% magnification it looks about the same size as it does in my browser, so edges may not come across quite right. (100/125 = 0.8, so that’s probably not a coincidence.) I set scaling to 100% for the second image, and that one looks true to life size, so it’s probably the better reference. Edit: On comparison, it’s not the serifs. Maybe it’s the lighter overall color on the page, or maybe it’s the way that autohinting exaggerates the contrast between thick and thin strokes.