General > General Technical Chat
The EU is banning 8K TV's!!!
tooki:
--- Quote from: PlainName on November 10, 2022, 06:30:26 pm ---
--- Quote ---but the higher resolution monitor will look shaper
--- End quote ---
Even though you can't distinguish between pixels?
--- End quote ---
To a point. At about 18” — the closest we ever look at our screens (like on phones), we can resolve about 300 pixels per inch. Beyond that, it doesn’t really make any difference.
tooki:
--- Quote from: PlainName on November 10, 2022, 05:30:55 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on November 10, 2022, 05:26:46 pm ---
--- Quote from: PlainName on November 10, 2022, 12:19:30 pm ---So if there was 8K input it would look better than upscaled input despite you not being able to see the individual pixels?
--- End quote ---
Setting the scaling on software simply draws the interface larger, to compensate for the higher resolution. Suppose the dimensions of a character such as the letter o is 10 pixels by 10 at 100%. If the scaling is set to 150%, then it will draw the letter o at 15 by 15 pixels.
--- End quote ---
Isn't that what stuff like Cleartype is all about? They draw at the 15x15 virtual scale and map that to the 10x10 actual pixels.
--- End quote ---
Nope. You’re thinking of (one approach to) grayscale anti-aliasing. It’s actually usually done by other, more computationally efficient methods.
Cleartype is Microsoft’s name for subpixel rendering, which allows the text renderer to be aware of the RGB subpixels in an LCD, so that it can produce more accurate letter shapes.
--- Quote from: tom66 on November 10, 2022, 05:46:12 pm ---ClearType's intelligence is treating the subpixels of a pixel as usable for improving font clarity. This is because the human eye has poor chrominance resolution compared to its luminance resolution
--- End quote ---
That is NOT why subpixel rendering works!
The principle isn’t that our eyes have lower chrominance resolution: the principle is that to draw a full-color pixel somewhere on a screen, you need all three subpixels — but they can be any three adjacent subpixels, giving you triple the horizontal placement resolution, with zero loss of chrominance resolution on all pixels except the first and last one of a line.
Where it gets trickier is attempting to use subpixel rendering not just to get triple placement resolution, but to draw lines whose thickness is not an integer multiple of a whole pixel. As soon as you use fractional pixel widths, you risk color shifts. So in practice, some algorithms “shade” grayscale-antialiased text with the colors to avoid extreme color shifts. Others render in full “color” and then desaturate it.
As it is, subpixel rendering is on its way out: nobody ever made a subpixel rendering implementation that supports arbitrary display rotation. Microsoft’s supports BGR subpixel order in addition to RGB, but nobody ever made a rendered that works with a display rotated 90 degrees. So between modern gadgets that support dynamically switching between landscape and portrait modes, high-resolution displays that simply have tons of resolution — and many of which use non-uniform subpixel arrangements (especially OLED, some of which is RGBW, some with different size subpixels for RGB*) — plus modern graphics pipelines that support the little animations and transforms in modern user interfaces, many modern OSes are deprecating subpixel rendering. iOS has never supported it, macOS has disabled it by default ever since the Retina (200% scaling) Macs came out, etc. The newer, iOS-derived graphics engine in macOS doesn’t even support subpixel rendering at all.
Windows has two completely different text rendering engines, the old GDI one and the later WPF one. The GDI ClearType is truly just subpixel-tweaked grayscale antialiasing, as it does not allow characters to be positioned in increments smaller than a whole pixel. WPF ClearType is extremely similar to the Mac subpixel renderer, which allows sub-pixel positioning (i.e. you can position a character anywhere, e.g. at 48.2216px), allowing more accurate overall text rendering. Both WPF and Core Graphics/Core Animation (the modern graphics APIs on iOS and macOS) fully support grayscale anti-aliasing with sub-pixel positioning, since it works well on any type of display, regardless of subpixel arrangement.
Unfortunately Windows can’t switch rendering modes on the fly, so on windows devices that can rotate the screen (like my convertible laptop), as soon as you rotate the screen away from whatever orientation ClearType is set to, ClearType text looks awful. Apple avoided this problem by simply never using subpixel rendering on iOS (and until now, not shipping any “convertible” Macs).
*despite the wiki article on subpixel rendering having an obscenely oversized section on the PenTile series of non-uniform subpixel arrangements, claiming some were designed for subpixel rendering, I am not aware of any implementations of such renderers being in actual use in the wild.
PlainName:
--- Quote ---At about 18” ... we can resolve about 300 pixels per inch
--- End quote ---
That's theory, and no doubt best case. What does practice say? I've seen people with their phone stuck up their left nostril and others holding them at arm's length. Theory is great, but it doesn't tell you how it actually is.
PlainName:
--- Quote --- You’re thinking of (one approach to) grayscale anti-aliasing
--- End quote ---
Yes, probably! The point I was trying to make is that the edges are blurred to make you think they're less jagged. The actual name or technique isn't really important.
Edit: although that point seems to have lost its relevance in the diversion, so I have no idea where this is going now.
SiliconWizard:
Obviously above a certain pixel density, antialiasing may not be necessary anymore. Maybe 8K is that threshold at arm-length for moderate-sized displays. Haven't seen any 8K display yet. But 4K isn't quite there except for very small displays.
This is all a matter of aliasing. Antialiasing is filtering, and the higher the "oversampling" ratio, the simplest your filter can become. To the point of not requiring any.
As I already said, "resolving a pixel" doesn't mean squat, especially below a certain pixel size. This isn't how eyesight works. We are not resolving individual pixels when we look at a bitmapped display (unless obviously there are only a few single pixels distributed over the display, in which case, good luck to even see them on a small FHD display at arm length. Just like we are not resolving individual frames when we look at a video. This misconception keeps on going.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version