On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:23:28 +0200, "Alex Mizrahi"
<udodenko@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> ??>> I've switched to 22" TFT monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 225bw) from an
> ??>> old 17" CRT one, and I've got problems with text quality -- all lines
> ??>> are too freaking thin and too crisp.
>
> k> What do you mean "line"? A font size can be changed,
>
>most fonts used normally have lines with one pixel width.
>i can set much larger font that has much wider lines -- it it's too
>contrast/crisp/jaggy.

But that is the ideal with black text, to have a maximum
possible contrast since it is black and the background is
(presumably) white. It will look smoother to use a monitor
with smaller pixel pitch, use the monitor further away from
you, use Cleartype, or a combination of all of these.
However, it is an esthetic thing not actually a problem or
readability issue. Remember, you are now seeing what you
computer is outputting while you weren't before. This is
accurate text.


> k> So you don't really mean it isn't bearable, you mean you
> k> don't like it but that it's actually more usable than ever
> k> before, because now the text has extremely high contrast
> k> which in fact makes it easier to read.
>
>yes, too much contrast. i don't see why it's easier to read -- why do we
>have antialiasing then (ClearType is recommended for LCDs, you know)?

We have cleartype because MS wants to make their OS seem
feature-rich. There is no such thing as too much contrast,
it is an ideal goal. That is also what is desired for paper
print, a sheet as white as possible (note that the brighter
white the paper the more it costs), and a pure black ink or
toner for maximum readability. With this in mind and that
the difference in paper and LCD (for one) is the LCD is
brighter, I wonder if you just have your monitor's
brightness set too high.



>why
>does Adobe use very heavy antialiasing in their PDF viewer? they want to
>make it harder to read?

Because there are two types of people reading things, those
that think smooth is good, and those who realize the eye
focuses better on things that have distinct forms, it tries
to refocus to make what will never be sharp, sharper than it
is.

Essentially, Cleartype is a shortcut towards trying to fix
an inherant limitation in our tech (pixel pitch is still
fairly large in any LCD monitor), and a problem with the OS
using point fonts instead of vectors (but it can't
effectively because the monitor pixel pitch isn't high
enough yet).

Basically, you are acting as though very smooth text is
important when it is not, when it is actually worse to have
smooth text if it requires reduction in contrast instead of
much smaller pixels but retaining the same maximum contrast.

What you got used to with a CRT doesn't make smooth fonts
better, it just means you are now needing to get used to
something else just as you once had to get used to a CRT.



>
> k> Regardless, if you don't like that then just increase the font size
> k> and realize that what you are now seeing is how it was supposed to look,
>
>no, it's not how it's supposed to look.

False, it is exactly how it's supposed to look. The OS uses
fonts that are defined pixels, point sizes made up of
(usually) black pixels on a white background. You are for
the first time seeing what is really there instead of a
blur. What is really there is indeed more pixelated than
real life, but it is an accurate representation of
_computer_output, it was never supposed to be an accurate
representation of real life at this pixel pitch.


>natural pictures are not jaggy.

This isn't a "natural picture", this is a computer output at
1680x1050. The most optimal thing for a monitor to do when
the computer says one pixel is pure black and the adjacent
is pure white, is to display them as such.

>CRT has nice built-in smoothing, while LCD needs artificial digital
>algorithms, which suck..

I completely disagree, the worst thing about a CRT is that
it blurs everything, which is what you are calling "nice
built-in smoothing. That smoothing degrades the picture,
causes loss of detail. LCD does not need artificial
algorithms, it is better than CRT right now at anything
except dark black contrast levels (when there are no
adjacent light pixels) and minimizing ghosting.

All LCDs need to achieve what you want is smaller pixel
pitch and better vector font scaling. What they should
never do is degrade like a CRT instead.


>
> ??>> it might seem i just have LCD allergia, but i'm pretty sure i do not
> ??>> -- i also have HP/Compaq nx6110 notebook with 15" TFT, and it is just
> ??>> fine, i'm using it even w/o antialiasing. (that's why i didn't do
> ??>> testing to monitor i've bought, i thought they cannot make it worse
> ??>> than old freaky TFT. they could..)
>
> k> ... but it's not actually worse, you just have a subjective
> k> opinion. Many people do want exactly what you dislike in
> k> your monitor, per-pixel precision.
>
>well, my notebooks monitor has exactly same per pixel precision, but somehow
>it looks much better (i've it and 22" and 19" side to side and compared).
>the visible difference is pretty big, so i wonder what is technological
>difference. (i've tried to take a closeup photo of pixels, but that didn't
>show why notebooks TFT is better..)

First, use DVI. Once you have this you can more accurately
judge the intended pixel accuracy. Maybe this new LCD is
not what you wanted, maybe some other model of LCD, even a
different size would suit your tastes better. It seems to
be true since you don't feel the notebook display is as bad,
but actually I think the notebook display is just less
accurate. Does it have a glossy screen? This will account
for part of the difference.


>
> ??>> actually they say that DVI is more crisp (no analog noise), but
> ??>> perhaps monitor does some signal processing of VGA input making it
> ??>> more crisp digitally, and that's why it sucks.
>
> k> Yes DVI is more crisp and yes analog does processing, making
> k> it artificially crisp again.
>
>aha, so it's a known fact that analog gets processed?

It has to be processed to convert back into digital to be
displayed on an LCD matrix. The sharpness setting on your
monitor is further realtime processing of this.


>i've heard rumors
>about this, but they are were not convincing (Samsung monitors have
>sharpness settings even with DVI, so i thought maybe it gets same processing
>anyway).

Are you certain the sharpness setting actually works when
it's in DVI mode? I've seen quite a few that have sharpness
setting but it didn't do anything in DVI mode, only in
analog. There should be no need for sharpness in DVI mode
anyway since it is exactly what the video card output.

>picking another monitor would be a lot of hassle since i'll need to
>get rid of current one, so i'll try to get a video card as my only hope :),
>and it should also be better for gaming in any case..
>

Well if you felt this way the first day you saw the monitor
I don't understand why you kept it then, instead of
returning it... surely you bought it from someplace with a
reasonably return policy? If not, I recommend this next
time.

Whether it is a hassle or not, only you can decide whether
it's worth the hassle... from one you wrote it seems like
you insist on a different monitor and won't be happy till
you go through the hassle to do that. I suggest you get a
24" with a glossy screen, and use DVI, to get a little
closer to your goal of a laptop-like display... but if
you're going to be picky about it you may still have to try
a few before being sure it's the right one for you.