I have the 2001FP, and looking at your samples the blue lettering does not look blurry to me. My monitor is using the DVI connection, the resolution is 1600X1200, and DPI setting on my card is 96. You did not have any mention on how your monitor was set up.
Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to view the images on my simple web site.
When I took those screen samples, I was using the analog input and using 96 dpi. I have now just converted to DVI and still at 96 dpi. When I look at the WSJ and NYT, the images are slightly better, though still not what I expect.
In your response you mention that the blue headings do not look blurry. Blurry might have been an incorrect description to use. Sketchy or splotchy (is there such a word?) is perhaps a better description. As you look at the individual letters, the letters are not solidly filled in. They are stronger in some parts and weaker in other parts. They look "watered" to me.
When I use my IBM laptop, I sometimes get the same lettering effect where the blue titles don't look crisp and sharp. When that happens, I simply reboot and the letters look crisp and sharp again. Also, I am accustomed to seeing this images on my old Dell, which had a CRT monitor, and the letters were crisp and sharp. Thus I am confident of my expectations.
When I viewed my web site at your settings, 1600 1200, the images don't look that bad. I suspect that the high resolution compresses the "error" that I see. Would you mind viewing my site again ( http://members.shaw.ca/dmstecyk/ ) using a lower resolution of 1024 768? This lower resolution is my second lowest resolution available. I am curious as to your comments when viewing the images under a lower resolution.
As you look at the blue headings, pay particular attention to the "c" "g" and other curved letters. The letters to me don't look "solid" with the IE browser images. The letters look much better when using the Mozilla browser images.
Again, I am curious as to your thoughts when viewing the images. I hope you see what I am referring to with the IE browser images where the letters are not strong, crisp, and solid.
Again, I thank you very much for taking the time and effort to view my images.
I looked at the samples again and now I see what you mean. Here is what the help files in Adobe Photoshop say about type in the web.
"Anti-aliasing lets you produce smooth-edged type by partially filling the edge pixels. As a result, the edges of the type blend into the background.
When creating type for display on the Web, consider that anti-aliasing greatly increases the number of colors in the original image. This limits your ability to reduce the number of colors in the image and thus reduce the image file size. This may also cause stray colors to appear along the edges of the type. When file size and limiting the number of colors is most important, leaving type without anti-aliased edges may be preferable, despite the jagged edges. Also, consider using larger type than you would use for printed works. Larger type can be easier to view on the Web and gives you more freedom in deciding whether to apply anti-aliasing to type.
When you use anti-aliasing, type may be rendered inconsistently at small sizes and low resolutions (such as the resolution used for Web graphics)".
But this is about graphics type. Your Mozilla seems to smooth the edges on the type.
I used the Windows Magnifier so I could see the "sketchy or splotchy" you was talking about. So I have the 2001FP and I see what you see even on this web page that the forum is on, (over on the left the words "Global Support Sites" are in black and it looks sketchy with the magnifier. Hold the Control key and roll the wheel on the mouse to make the type larger, see if that helps. Bob
I used the Windows Magnifier so I could see the "sketchy or splotchy" you was talking about. So I have the 2001FP and I see what you see even on this web page that the forum is on, (over on the left the words "Global Support Sites" are in black and it looks sketchy with the magnifier.
Hi Bob,
We seem to be on the same page when viewing text. We have the monitor and are witnessing the same thing. Could I just indulge one last favor? And that is, could you please visit the NY Times Business Section using IE and check if the blue headlines are "sketchy or splotchy"?
(You might have to register for the NY Times, but it is free.)
Bottom line appears to be that text at lower resolutions looks a little sketchy. I know my IBM does this sometimes, but a reboot cures it. I seem to recall reading that LCD monitors perform best at optimal resolution (1600 1200 in our case), and if you deviate away from that, then the text performance degrades markedly. So perhaps, that is what I am witnessing. Interestingly, graphics still look great.
The Clear Type did help. And so did going to digital.
All in all, I am very happy with the monitor. I just wish that text was sharper at lower screen resolutions.
I very much appreciate you having taken the time and effort to review my images and commenting on them. Knowing that another user sees things the same way is of great comfort. As a new user, I am curious if it is just me, just my monitor, or if this is the way everyone sees the same images. So thank you once again.
rstaats
3 Posts
0
January 19th, 2004 12:00
I have the 2001FP, and looking at your samples the blue lettering does not look blurry to me. My monitor is using the DVI connection, the resolution is 1600X1200, and DPI setting on my card is 96. You did not have any mention on how your monitor was set up.
Bob
MountainHiker
10 Posts
0
January 19th, 2004 14:00
Hi Bob,
Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to view the images on my simple web site.
When I took those screen samples, I was using the analog input and using 96 dpi. I have now just converted to DVI and still at 96 dpi. When I look at the WSJ and NYT, the images are slightly better, though still not what I expect.
In your response you mention that the blue headings do not look blurry. Blurry might have been an incorrect description to use. Sketchy or splotchy (is there such a word?) is perhaps a better description. As you look at the individual letters, the letters are not solidly filled in. They are stronger in some parts and weaker in other parts. They look "watered" to me.
When I use my IBM laptop, I sometimes get the same lettering effect where the blue titles don't look crisp and sharp. When that happens, I simply reboot and the letters look crisp and sharp again. Also, I am accustomed to seeing this images on my old Dell, which had a CRT monitor, and the letters were crisp and sharp. Thus I am confident of my expectations.
When I viewed my web site at your settings, 1600 1200, the images don't look that bad. I suspect that the high resolution compresses the "error" that I see. Would you mind viewing my site again ( http://members.shaw.ca/dmstecyk/ ) using a lower resolution of 1024 768? This lower resolution is my second lowest resolution available. I am curious as to your comments when viewing the images under a lower resolution.
As you look at the blue headings, pay particular attention to the "c" "g" and other curved letters. The letters to me don't look "solid" with the IE browser images. The letters look much better when using the Mozilla browser images.
Again, I am curious as to your thoughts when viewing the images. I hope you see what I am referring to with the IE browser images where the letters are not strong, crisp, and solid.
Again, I thank you very much for taking the time and effort to view my images.
delta7000
2 Intern
•
454 Posts
0
January 19th, 2004 14:00
Just a thought. Have you enabled "Clear Type" in Windows XP?
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/cleartypeactivate.htm
ty
Message Edited by delta7000 on 01-19-2004 11:59 AM
MountainHiker
10 Posts
0
January 19th, 2004 15:00
Thank you very much. No, I hadn't turned on Clear Type. But now that it is on, the text appears better, though not perfect.
I will read up on Clear Type to better understand it.
Again, thank you very much!
rstaats
3 Posts
0
January 19th, 2004 22:00
Hello Hiker,
I looked at the samples again and now I see what you mean. Here is what the help files in Adobe Photoshop say about type in the web.
"Anti-aliasing lets you produce smooth-edged type by partially filling the edge pixels. As a result, the edges of the type blend into the background.
When creating type for display on the Web, consider that anti-aliasing greatly increases the number of colors in the original image. This limits your ability to reduce the number of colors in the image and thus reduce the image file size. This may also cause stray colors to appear along the edges of the type. When file size and limiting the number of colors is most important, leaving type without anti-aliased edges may be preferable, despite the jagged edges. Also, consider using larger type than you would use for printed works. Larger type can be easier to view on the Web and gives you more freedom in deciding whether to apply anti-aliasing to type.
When you use anti-aliasing, type may be rendered inconsistently at small sizes and low resolutions (such as the resolution used for Web graphics)".
But this is about graphics type. Your Mozilla seems to smooth the edges on the type.
I used the Windows Magnifier so I could see the "sketchy or splotchy" you was talking about. So I have the 2001FP and I see what you see even on this web page that the forum is on, (over on the left the words "Global Support Sites" are in black and it looks sketchy with the magnifier. Hold the Control key and roll the wheel on the mouse to make the type larger, see if that helps. Bob
MountainHiker
10 Posts
0
January 19th, 2004 23:00
Hi Bob,
We seem to be on the same page when viewing text. We have the monitor and are witnessing the same thing. Could I just indulge one last favor? And that is, could you please visit the NY Times Business Section using IE and check if the blue headlines are "sketchy or splotchy"?
(You might have to register for the NY Times, but it is free.)
Bottom line appears to be that text at lower resolutions looks a little sketchy. I know my IBM does this sometimes, but a reboot cures it. I seem to recall reading that LCD monitors perform best at optimal resolution (1600 1200 in our case), and if you deviate away from that, then the text performance degrades markedly. So perhaps, that is what I am witnessing. Interestingly, graphics still look great.
The Clear Type did help. And so did going to digital.
All in all, I am very happy with the monitor. I just wish that text was sharper at lower screen resolutions.
I very much appreciate you having taken the time and effort to review my images and commenting on them. Knowing that another user sees things the same way is of great comfort. As a new user, I am curious if it is just me, just my monitor, or if this is the way everyone sees the same images. So thank you once again.