[SquareWheel]

I've recently been learning about how fonts render based on subpixel layouts in monitor panels. Windows assumes that all panels use RGB layout, and their ClearType software will render fonts with that assumption in mind. Unfortunately, this leads to visible text fringing on new display types, like the alternative stripe pattern used on WOLED monitors, or the triangular pattern used on QD-OLED.

Some third-party tools exist to tweak how ClearType works, like MacType[1] or Better ClearType Tuner[2]. Unfortunately, these tools don't work in Chrome/electron, which seems to implement its own font rendering. Reading this, I guess that's through FreeType.

I hope that as new panel technologies start becoming more prevalent, that somebody takes the initiative to help define a standard for communicating subpixel layouts from displays to the graphics layer, which text (or graphics) rendering engines can then make use of to improve type hinting. I do see some efforts in that area from Blur Busters[3] (the UFO Test guy), but still not much recognition from vendors.

Note I'm still learning about this topic, so please let me know if I'm mistaken about any points here.

[1] https://github.com/snowie2000/mactype

[2] https://github.com/bp2008/BetterClearTypeTuner

[3] https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys/issues/25595

[wkat4242]

I'm pretty sure windows dropped subpixel anti-aliasing a few years ago. When it did exist there was a wizard to determine and set the subpixel layout.

Personally I don't bother anymore anyway since I have a HiDPI display (about 200dpi, 4K@24"). I think that's a better solution, simply have enough pixels to look smooth. It's what phones do too of course.

[ghusbands]

To be clear: Windows still does subpixel rendering, and the wizard is still there. The wizard has not actually worked properly for at least a decade at this point, and subpixel rendering is always enabled, unless you use hacks or third-party programs.

[layer8]

DirectWrite doesn’t apply subpixel anti-aliasing by default [0], and an increasing number of applications use it, including Microsoft Office since 2013. One reason is the tablet mode starting with Windows 8, because subpixel ClearType only works in one orientation. Nowadays non-uniform subpixel layouts like OLED panels use are another reason.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType#ClearType_in_DirectW...

[cosmic_cheese]

macOS dropped it a few years ago, primarily because there are no Macs with non-HiDPI displays any more (reducing benefit of subpixel AA) and to improve uniformity with iOS apps running on macOS via Catalyst (iOS has never supported subpixel AA, since it doesn’t play nice with frequently adjusted orientations).

Windows I believe still uses RGB subpixel AA, because OLED monitor users still need to tweak ClearType settings to make text not look bad.

[grishka]

> because there are no Macs with non-HiDPI displays any more

That is not true. Apple still sells Macs that don't come with a screen, namely Mac Mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro. People use these with non-HiDPI monitors they already own all the time.

[da_chicken]

That's not really the most charitable reading of GP's comment. I think they very clearly mean that Apple does not sell Macs with non-HiDPI displays anymore. It's not a configuration they sell, so they don't need to support those features anymore in their current offerings.

You're right that there's nothing stopping someone from hooking up an HDMI-to-VGA adapter for their 22" Trinitron from 2001, but that doesn't mean boat anchors are a meaningful market segment. It's not a consideration for why they should retain a font rendering feature for a modern OS. You're just going to have to suffer with fuzzy fonts for your retrogaming hobby.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The Trinitron will blur itself at 1600x1200. The problem is the legions of low PPI 1080p LCDs in business settings.

[grishka]

> It's not a configuration they sell

So what is the "configuration they sell" for the desktop Macs? The Studio Display that costs way too much for what it is, so to no one's surprise, they're not selling all that many of those? Or the Pro Display XDR for which the stand alone costs more than an entry-level Mac Mini? Sure no one will buy a $1600 monitor to use with their $600 Mac Mini. They'll get a much cheaper third-party 2K one.

[da_chicken]

Apple put all their chips behind Retina/HiDPI displays. To that end, they've got really good HiDPI resolution scaling, they no longer sell displays incapable of Retina features (in laptops or stand-alone), and they have removed features that only serve to support sub-4k displays. To Apple, 4k is the minimum standard.

If you want a 2k monitor you can buy one and hook it up, but Apple isn't interested in making it look good. It's a not new decision, either. They stopped selling Macbooks without Retina displays in 2016. They haven't supported 2k scaling since the M1 Mac Mini over 5 years ago: https://www.macworld.com/article/549493/how-to-m1-mac-1440p-...

Apple is not a budget vendor. They're a premium vendor. That's not just what other people call them. It's what they themselves profess to be. That's why you can get an Apple Thunderbolt cable for $70. To Apple, if you buy a Mac Mini, yes they're expecting you to hook it up to a 4k monitor. They expect you to be getting a Mac Mini because you want a Mac, not because you can't afford a Macbook.

[truncate]

Since you are so sure about how Mac Mini's are used, is it 2k on 24" or 27" that these customers use?

My impressions based on limited anecdotal data I've is that most people with mac mini are using it as their secondary device (everyone has a Macbooks). Everyone is using 27" 4k monitors. 4k monitors are not that far from 2k monitors, and I think most people who are preferring to buy 2k are gamers that want higher refresh rate that their GPU can support at 2k. But gamers are not using Mac's anyway.

[p_ing]

They don't sell it as part of the configuration options.

You can separately purchase whatever monitor you wish. There are now plenty of 27" 5K monitors out there. Asus, LG (for now), Viewsonic, Kuycon, others I'm probably forgetting. They're expensive as far as monitors go, but not as expensive as the Studio Display.

[cosmic_cheese]

Sure, but they’re not going to optimize for that case because the bulk of their Mac sales are tied up in their laptops and a significant chunk (I’d hazard a guess over 50%) of people buying Studios/Pros especially but also Minis are pairing them with Studio Displays, Pro Display XDRs, or more recently the various third-party 2x HiDPI display offerings from the likes of Asus, BenQ, Dell, and Samsung.

[thyristan]

Subpixel AA for Macs is useless anyways, the fonts will look blurry no matter what you do on a Mac.

[cosmic_cheese]

They’re fine to my eye, at least as good as well tuned freetype (as found on Ubuntu) as long as you’re either using a 2x HiDPI display or are using a “normal” DPI monitor with above average density (e.g. 2560x1440 27”) and have subpixel AA forced on.

Where it falls apart is at densities any lower, for example it struggles on those awful 1366x768 15.6” panels that it seemed like every other laptop was built with for a while. Similarly 24” 1080p and 32” 2560x1440 are pretty bad.

[hnuser123456]

I didn't have to do any cleartype tuning on my LG C2. But maybe since it's a TV they have room for conventional subpixel layouts.

[wkat4242]

ohh maybe it was macOS I am confused with here. Sorry. I use every OS under the sun together.

Or it could have been the DirectWrite thing. I just don't remember where I read it.

I always thought cleartype was ugly by the way.

[hnuser123456]

It absolutely still does subpixel AA. Take a screenshot of any text and zoom way in, there's red and blue fringing. And the ClearType text tuner is still a functional builtin program in Win11 24H2.

[nine_k]

I still have subpixel antialiasing on when using a 28" 4K display. It's the same DPI as a FHD 14" display, typical on laptops. Subpixel AA makes small fonts look significantly more readable.

But it only applies to Linux, where the small fonts can be made look crisp this way. Windows AA is worse, small fonts are a bit more blurred on the same screen, and amcOS is the worst: connecting a 24" FHD screen to an MBP ives really horrible font rendering, unless you make fonts really large. I suppose it's because macOS does not do subpxel AA at all, and assumes high DPI screens only.

[Clamchop]

As far as I'm aware, ClearType is still enabled by default in Windows.

Subpixel text rendering was removed from MacOS some time ago, though, presumably because they decided it was not needed on retina screens. Maybe you're thinking of that?

[perching_aix]

It didn't. Some parts of the UI are using grayscale AA, some are on subpixel AA. And sometimes it's just a blur, to keep things fun I guess.

Pretty sure phones do grayscale AA.

[tadfisher]

The standard is EDID-DDDB, and subpixel layout is a major part of that specification. However I believe display manufacturers are dropping the ball here.

https://glenwing.github.io/docs/VESA-EEDID-DDDB-1.pdf

[kiicia]

For me, being old time user, (ab)using any subpixel layouts for text rendering and antialiasing is counterproductive and (especially with current pixel densities, but also in general) introduces much more issues that it actually ever solved

“Whole pixel/grayscale antialiasing” should be enough and then specialized display controller would handle the rest

[tadfisher]

Agreed, but layouts such as Pentile don't actually have all three subpixel components in a logical pixel, so you'll still get artifacts even with grayscale AA. You can compensate for this by masking those missing components.

https://github.com/snowie2000/mactype/issues/932

[kiicia]

surprising info, I thought this was supposed to be the part about "display controller taking care of any additional issues", thanks for link with details, will read it with interest

[TheRealPomax]

Mandatory reading when getting into this topic: http://rastertragedy.com/

[cosmic_cheese]

I may be totally off the mark here, but my understanding is that the alternative pixel arrangements found in current WOLED and QD-OLED monitors are suboptimal in various ways (despite the otherwise excellent qualities of these displays) and so panel manufacturers are working towards OLED panels built with traditional RGB subpixel arrangements that don’t forfeit the benefits of current WOLED and QD-OLED tech.

That being the case, it may end up being that in the near future, alternative arrangements end up being abandoned and become one of the many quirky “stepping stone” technologies that litter display technology history. While it’s still a good idea to support them better in software, that might put into context why there hasn’t been more efforts put into doing so.

[RKFADU_UOFCCLEL]

Windows has always allowed you to change subpixel layout, its right there in the clear type settings.

[zozbot234]

Sub-pixel anti-aliasing requires outputing a pixel-perfect image to the screen, which is a challenge when you're also doing rendering on the GPU. You generally can't rely on any non-trivial part of the standard 3D-rendering pipeline (except for simple blitting/compositing) and have to use the GPU's compute stack instead to address those requirements. This adds quite a bit of complexity.