How to absolutely, positively

>>323382
>Blurred
That's not blurred, it's ClearType subpixel rendering.

If it looks blurred to you, your monitor is not set up correctly.

But anyway, you don't have to fuck about deleting random bits of windows, just turn ClearType off.

File: like this.png (59KB, 797x799px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 797x799px

wouldnt it be easier to just turn off cleartype? the font rendering on your screenshot is completely broken

File: file.png (81KB, 793x566px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 793x566px

>>323400
It is already off.

I turned off every form of cleartype and changed all my fonts to Tahoma from Segoe (cleared up a few fonts as well).

I even went as far as removing Segoe from my PC entirely.

File: file.png (44KB, 1465x716px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1465x716px

>>323401
>>323400
what part of
>I followed all the instructions I could google up
did you not get?
Clear type is turned off, as well as absolutely everything you can google up has already been done.
also
>>323400
check picrelated.

If clear type was on, both parts wouldve been equaly smoothed, but only left part is.
Thing with clear type - it adds colors which you can clearly see on zoomed-in pic.
It might look good on low contrast crappy LCDs, but on high grade high contrast LCD where everything is crystal clear this shit sticks out like a sore thumb.

>>323406
then there is nothing you can do (unless you wanna start butchering windows internals), since the font handle for that list is probably being created with
>CLEARTYPE_QUALITY
set.
>https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd183499(v=vs.85).aspx

how you are gonna fix the mess you made with all those registry font replacement i dont know.
it would probably be better to turn on clear type without the "chromatic aberration" (i believe it has a greyscale aa setting somewhere in the config procedure)
gl

also, windows xp doesnt have this problem :^)

File: image.jpg (29KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 250x250px

>>323406
>It might look good on low contrast crappy LCDs, but on high grade high contrast LCD where everything is crystal clear this shit sticks out like a sore thumb.
It doesn't "add colours" unless you're running your display outside its native resolution. It's nothing to do with your "high quality" LCD, it's a problem of your own creation because you've set up the screen wrong and there's not a 1:1 correspondence between the pixels Windows uses and the actual subpixel groups on the TV.

I'm saying "TV" because that's what "high grade high contrast LCD" is clearly a euphemism for. Turn off all the postprocessing shit on your TV, and run it at whatever its resolution actually is.

>>323413
Hey those registry font replacements actually helped :P
Also already butchered some windows internals by physically hacking off all of segoe (this un-smoothed some menues, but not all)
I tried the grayscale version, it's still blurry shit.
>>323415
>being a condescending prick

well thank you, working with graphics for a living I still can not distinguish between a monitor LCD, you sure showed me where I was wrong :^)

File: win8.0.png (25KB, 681x323px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 681x323px

>>323418
how about installing windows 8? iirc the cleartype subpixel rendering in it much better than the one in win7 (i briefly used 7 on a laptop and also had to slightly mess with the cleartype settings)
also, on those screenshot you seem to have cleartype set to bgr instead of rgb, it will definitely help to use the same layout as your lcd subpixel ordering
>already butchered some windows internals
if really really really want to you can go through all the files that use gdi32.dll and on every call to createfont replace the fdwquality param with 3 (its what NONANTIALIASED_QUALITY evaluates to). or create a dll wrapper for gdi32.dll (renaming it to something else). but none of this sound like good ideas

>>323421
Win 8/10 breaks compatibility with some of the software im using, so sadly, that's not the way I can go.

Also after spending so much time with the issue aleready I've seen it pop up quite fequently on various forums and It's weird that there is no utility to get rid of it everywhere at once. Only thing that comes close to it was a simple tool that did exactly the same thing as a registry edit would do in replacing Segoe with Tahoma.

>>323415
>working with graphics for a living I still can not distinguish between a monitor LCD
You clearly can't set one up, so maybe you should do something else?

>>323425
>Also after spending so much time with the issue aleready I've seen it pop up quite fequently on various forums and It's weird that there is no utility to get rid of it everywhere at once.
That's because most people can install a monitor and don't need it.
>Only thing that comes close to it was a simple tool that did exactly the same thing as a registry edit would do in replacing Segoe with Tahoma.
Windows antialiases every font that's not hinted for the exact pixel resolution it's being used at, so your utility would have to hint or replace every font in the whole entire world.

>>323435
>>323438
wew, hold on lad, you cant even quote the right posts
its not a matter of the screen scaler or high contrast being turned on, but more of preference, i bet. those that used to use good crt screens back in the day tend to prefer aliased fonts, at least from what ive seen (i know i do, or at least did, now its "meh, as long as the source-code editor look ok-ish its alright"). thing is, with every new windows version consistency goes down (just look at how many different types/layouts of context menus are in windows 10) and so the setting of font are not "global" anymore, parts of the ui use one, and another parts use another (at least on xp you could change everything) which make sit a pain to change something as simple as the system wide font (i cant even find the setting for it on windows 8 anymore). still, i doubt op will be able to get what he wants without some "clever trickery" on the font handling system

>>323400
The text on the left in the image is blurred as fuck. I reckon he should actually turn cleartype on, and get the settings right. Cleartype is designed to prevent this.

>>323746
Prior to trying to remove it from the system entireyly, I tried to configure it in a less eye-soreing way.

That text is not affected by cleartype settings.

File: image.jpg (123KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 750x1334px

>>323757
>entireyly, I tried to configure it in a less eye-soreing way.
>That text is not affected by cleartype settings.
I'm reasonably sure it wouldn't default to rendering text for a monitor that's upside-down. RGB subpixel rendering has the blue fringe on the right of the black text. Your text is BGR, which is not appropriate for nearly all screens.

You've clearly broken something important inside Windows if it's doing that.

>>323763
Im pretty sure if you unblur your screenshot (use nearest neighbor integer upscaling) youll see picture not unsimilar to mine.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 501x176px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 501x176px

>>323382
Display this at 1:1. One of the bottom four lines will look dramatically better than the top two. If none of them do, you're not displaying it at 1:1, and you need to select the correct resolution, disable scaling on your TV, disable postprocessing on your TV, use HDMI/DVI instead of VGA, and so on.

>>323766
What are you even talking about?

>>323770
Bilinear filter in upscaling. Don't use it when talking about pixels.

>>323767
My display is running at 1:1. It runs at 1080p, its max specified res is 1080p, besides I clearly see individual pixels in un-smoothed font, if I had it wrong they wouldve been blurry as well.
I also provided screenshots.
The first line looks the best obviously, other ones also don't look so bad, but they are from an LCD calibration site, aren't they? 'Been there, done that.

>>323781
>Don't use it when talking about pixels.
Again, why the fuck do you think that's even remotely relevant? Do you even understand what's going on?

You can tell it's being rendered for BGR because the raster goes white, blue, black, yellow, white ( ''' '.. ... .'' ''' on BGR and ''' ..' ... ''. ''' on RGB). Almost no panels are BGR, almost all panels are RGB

I have no idea why you're talking about seeing pixels when seeing pixels is not even remotely relevant to the discussion.

>1080p.
I knew it. You're using a fucking TV.

1080 is the input resolution, not the resolution of the panel. You need to be 1:1 with the actual panel, not 1:1 with the TV's postprocessor.

It's really obvious you're not at 1:1, because if you were, one (AND ONLY ONE) of the subpixel-rendered texts would look fantastic, and the other three would look like the second line, except with weird colour fringes.

>>323786
>doubling down on TV argument

you are an arrogant idiot

>>323787
So post a picture of your "high grade high contrast LCD that totally isn't a TV".

You can't dispute the facts: there are only four subpixel layouts it's possible to have, your panel has to have one of them, so if all four of the samples "don't look so bad" this necessarily means you're not addressing it 1:1.

If you were getting 1:1 (which you aren't), one of the samples (the correct one) would look great, and the other three would look awful.

File: DSC_0002_.jpg (4MB, 4188x1985px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4188x1985px

>>323790
LCD model Samsung S27E391H

Also here's a pic coupled with clear image of the matrix with your post on it.

>>323792
Right, that's RGB, which means your text is being rendered exactly backwards (as you should be able to see by taking the same kind of zoomed in shot). You'll see your diagonals going

___##_###_##___
___#__######___
______######__#

instead of
____#######____
_____#######___
______#######__

because you've not set the subpixel format correctly.

So run the tuner, and set it to RGB, not BGR, and use your camera or a similar magnifier to confirm that it actually has.

File: image.png (17KB, 1060x386px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1060x386px

>>323792
after roughly counting the pixels on that (approximation based on the scrollbar width) that is no doubt a 1080p screen (1920/16 ~= 1550/13 [missed by 10 pixels :) ]) so no scaler issues there.
i had a hunch it was just a matter of preference, you will get used to it, but not with your current settings. and the screen size doesnt help, those "massive" pixel dimensions dont help (27" is rather large for a 1080p monitor, too close to your eyes)
if you have the chance of using win8 and running win7 inside a vm do it, your eyes will thank you, and eventually you will get used to it (i alternate between machines with cleartype and no cleartype multiple times per day and as long as it is not a win7 or "old" ubuntu machine i dont even notice font subpixel rendering anymore)
gl

also, here is a shitty image base on the images on this thread, its probably of no use now