Font rendering thread

>le make everything bolder because hinting is absent/trash

I actually like bolder fonts, it's easier for eyes if you're reading on a display. Linux fonts are so thin I've even written some Stylus stylesheets to make fonts bolder when I was using Linux.

my computer renders fonts, yes

Attached: tokyo.png (803x472, 264.19K)

alright
shit
:D
Meh
Disgusting
Best so far

Is there a way to generate psf bitmaps out of some ot/tt fonts that doesn't make them look like shit?

at this point, why not use bitmaps?

Font rendering is irrelevant for high DPI screens. There's no point in making these threads anymore?

Attached: 1641589120188.png (1830x1045, 225.33K)

aaahahahaha

This is the ideal font rendering setup. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.

Attached: fontrendering.png (1920x820, 58.61K)

Isn't this thread kind of pointless, since optimal subpixel AA depends on the panel its being viewed on?
Isn't this like comparing HDR vs no HDR on a non HDR monitor, or 120fps vs 60fps on a 60fps panel?

i am sorry

Attached: screen_003.jpg (1366x768, 238.62K)

You're not wrong, but not everyone is posting scaled up shit, so just ignore everyone who does.

No. You're looking bitmaps. Subpixel AA is represented as a fixed colour value in a pixel.

how do I make my font rendering pretty on linux?

Attached: file.png (1704x480, 89.7K)

it can't be achieved unfortunately
one thing I miss from windows is its font rendering

Disable subpixel rendering

it is quite clearly disabled, my guy.

you choose proper default fonts, like Liberation and enable slight hinting if it's not already

>it can't be achieved unfortunately
I don't think this is true. I haven't used Ubuntu since 16.04, but as I recall the rendering was quite good. Other than that I have used fedora and SUSE and neither compared to Ubuntu so I'm thinking they're doing something special that others are too lazy to implement.

Are you fucking blind?

Attached: subpixel rendering.png (1090x180, 3.29K)

Attached: shot-2022-01-27_14-19-48.jpg (1655x1120, 434.73K)

I'm sorry to tell you, but it isn't. I even checked to make sure.

I may be colourblind, but I'm not retarded. That is clearly grayscale. In other words, not sub-pixel.

Attached: tokyo.png (1628x867, 825.82K)

realizing I posted jpeg

Attached: screen.png (1492x1111, 657.64K)

subpixel rendering is good for lodpi displays

Am i blind or do all of these look the exact same?

Sorry, I meant anti-aliasing.

Its a 1080p panel but on a 13.5 inch display so the DPI is in desktop 4k range

fpbp, the rest are fucking disgusting, how can freetards put up with this?

pick a better font
use sub-pixel anti-aliasing instead of greyscale anti-aliasing

Attached: 1643282300761.png (1860x510, 15.18K)

Attached: 2022-01-27_05-46.png (3053x1798, 626.75K)

Looks good

stil not as gud as mine :::D

I have always hated that disgusting orange-bluish hue of windows fonts

>use image of already rendered text that uses subpixel AA
>zoom in hard so subpixel AA is not subpixel anymore but huge boxes
>"hurr it looks bad"

you should calibrate your ClearType and not use ULTRA INSTINCT 200x CONTRAST GAYMER MODE of your graphics card for text

It doesn't look orange or blue at all, it is like that so it looks good to your eyes when you look at it normally. Don't magnify it. Actually try calibrating it as mentioned if it doesn't look right.

i was told text looked good in macos because of the high res displays but ngl this looks pretty gross

Completely based. Look how the bitmap font is superior to the blurry abomination on the right.

Attached: 27012022-171317.png (1248x1250, 455.01K)

How do fonts work? Like, if I set a gtk font, it only changes firefox's ui, right? How do I affect actual website fonts and make them look better?

I'd rather have grayscale blur than chromatic aberration, but to each their own.

still looking for non-monospace bitmap fonts :(

gtk font settings affect website fonts as well (things like anti aliasing), its just that websites can set their own fonts if you allow them to. you can force them to use your own fonts in the firefox settings

Name of the bitmap font?

macOS with subpixel rendering?

Attached: Screenshot_20220127_112407.png (1827x963, 417.41K)

Chrome on windows has the most disgusting font rendering of all time

Attached: chrome_LNCTTSzXsY.png (595x623, 220.84K)

UnreadableFont25.tif

Not like you can do much else at that resolution. The other options look worse.

Attached: file.png (1920x1080, 273.57K)

How can you work like this, you can only fit about 50 lines on screen

>50 lines on screen
Well, sometimes I like to zoom to 150%, so less than 50 lines

Linux with tweaked freetype LCD filter.

debian

Attached: rendering.png (1738x359, 83.33K)

Gentoo.
Looks good to me. Am I missing something?

Attached: 1634244406360.png (3840x2160, 886.24K)

>sneedversity
fucking hack

Yeah, I took the screenshot to remember the title and watch it later, but I quickly realized this too.

Maybe on Windows. Grayscale AA with slightly heavier weighting and subtle hinting would look miles better.

gib font pls

ironically you'll get more aberration with greyscale because you get a bigger contrast between the white subpixels and the "anti-aliasing"'s subpixels

>Just bold everything
Yeah no, it'll look like shit at 1080p. There's a reason why Apple did the whole retina thing.

what do you mean? there's no such thing as "white subpixels".

I never said "bold everything". The weighting in is a lot lighter than almost anything else in the thread. Does that make everything else "bold"? Or is it more the fact that MS's ClearType tends to be particularly light?

>what do you mean?
subpixels of a pixel that's displaying white, i.e. all subpixels of a pixel at max brightness

anti-aliasing at subpixel level makes the transition smoother, so you don't have a high contrast edge, so any aberration should be less noticeable

Attached: Subpixel_demonstration_(Quartz).png (666x474, 88.32K)

Attached: file.png (1920x1080, 617.58K)

I agree, i think fonts look better on my old retina macbook pro than on my windows pc. downloaded mactype to remediate it.

That's Fira Sans.

retard, that one is literally the worst

rate

Attached: file.png (1153x561, 241.54K)

Attached: .png (940x1033, 317.02K)

stop using dejavu shit, liberation is objectively superior

winner

good

meh

bad

shit

How i can make font rendering better?
1920x1080 23,5 inches display\
Any god tier solutions?

Attached: file.png (1920x1040, 456.51K)

Get a better display

They all look the same I don't get it

Some are. Some aren't. Variations in font rendering are very subtle. And you need good eye sight to see them. I personally don't care, as long as it doesn't change. An upgrade that changes font rendering will be different enough that I'll know something's changed but not know exactly what which is fucking annoying.

Default openpepe tumbleweed with gnone

Attached: font-rendering.png (2353x924, 343.35K)

Vanilla Ubuntu is so beautiful and just werks

Attached: Captura de pantalla de 2022-01-27 10-57-24.png (1816x933, 383.46K)

is there a guide to get good font rendering on windows and Linux? I followed one once but then I read that the changes the guide walked you through were implemented by default. The fonts on my phone look way better but I presume that's because its 100000000 ppi vs 110

only gays who have not yet had a full sex change are interested in font rendering

>is there a guide to get good font rendering on windows
1) Turn on your Windows computer.

Windows font rendering is really decent. If you want better, you need a higher resolution screen. On Linux, font rendering is shit (as demonstrated by most screenshots in this thread), so you need a higher resolution screen that makes it look decent.

It's not shit, those screenshots use the default shit Dejavu font, which looks horribly bad.

Attached: 1623021060432.png (640x408, 42.94K)

More like people who never had sex are interested in font rendering

I win

Attached: .png (1851x1027, 323.95K)

Fair enough. But I still don't like the subtle yellow tinge you get along the edges, i.e. Blue light filter masks it, but I don't have it on all the time. That, and I've had problems with certain fonts going full on rainbow colours on my portrait monitor. Grayscale is good enough that I can't tell the difference in most cases, and gives me fewer problems.

Works on my machine

Attached: 1643305203350.jpg (3024x952, 1.77M)

Attached: 1643305317895.jpg (1111x254, 25.32K)

lmao at pixellet

Attached: 1624345346835.jpg (1605x459, 241.82K)

It's true that fonts on Linux are fucking atrocious, and they make the experience much, much worse, and it's a bigger problem than the font rendering. Autists simply lack any aesthetic skills, or if they don't, they become artist trannies instead linuxtrannies. If the fonts were better, the fonts rendering would not feel this bad.

The font rendering is still shit, however. Pic related is two 1080p screenshot from this thread which use similar fonts. The picture speaks for itself. The Linux version looks blurry and jagged, but when you look at it, you are like "it's not THAT bad, I guess," but that's only until you look at the Windows version, which looks sharper and more uniform.

Attached: 1622711992386.png (1870x811, 389.49K)

I unironically like the Linux rendering more. Windows rendering is looking too crispy to me. The problem with Linux font rendering is it fails at rendering text with dark background and some fonts will have shitty hinting on Linux

I have a 28 inch 1440p Lenovo monitor sitting on the floor because I'd rather use a 1080p 144 Hz monitor for work.

Yeah, well, nothing wrong with that, I remember preferring the old Mac OS X font rendering to Windows 10 years ago, but I grew to like Windows font rendering much more, and I understand why most people like this more.

With high-DPI displays, it's easier to make it good, but it's still a subtle but important factor that affects how the user likes the system. But as I mentioned, fonts are even more important. They can and do literally make the difference between going "eww this looks like shit" and not even noticing how good (i.e. normal) it looks.

>low res gaymer monitor instead of high res monitor for work
let you guess, you "work" as a livestreamer?

I remember Safari rendered similarly the pages on fucking Xp a decade ago. In other words, this thread is retarded.

serif

Nimbus Roman
Noto Serif
Noto Color Emoji
DejaVu Serif



sans-serif

Noto Sans
Noto Color Emoji
DejaVu Sans



sans

Noto Sans
Noto Color Emoji
DejaVu Sans



monospace

mononoki
Noto Color Emoji
DejaVu Sans Mono




true




hintfull


~/.fonts


true

Attached: FANLORE.png (1894x965, 173.68K)

>the subtle yellow tinge you get along the edges
again, it should not be noticeable if you calibrate the anti-aliasing to your display
looking at other people's screenshots would only make sense if you had the same display with same settings as the poster, assuming the poster had calibrated his anti-aliasing

is this thread the nerd equivalent to audiofags

Attached: fontlin.png.jpg (1742x688, 212.44K)

Attached: Screenshot from 2022-01-27 14-27-06.png (837x639, 192.62K)

How do I calibrate on Linux?

No, I'm an e-commerce developer. Some C#, some front end. It's nice.

I am planning on getting a high rez 120 Hz monitor, I can't stand 60 Hz anymore.

>using arial as your system font
no, microsoft doesn't even do that.

so use microsoft fonts retard, thats literally an option. you are making up reasons to be autistic

Attached: 1625421746291.jpg (600x590, 68.13K)

Linux one doesn't have subpixel rendering enabled. Not a fair comparison

So these guys are behind the global copium shortage

How about this?

Attached: file.png (1920x1080, 484.29K)

What fonts are these?

Worst I've ever seen. Made a Any Forums account just to post this.

What font?

Attached: Screenshot_20220127_135028.png (2560x1440, 509.41K)

Liberation mono.

Oops,thought that (you) was for my second post. The font for was just the default dejavu serif firefox has, I'm pretty sure.

I don't understand why they would remove the option for font smoothing
it looks way better turned off here in Catalina

Attached: Screenshot 2022-01-27 at 13-57-52 macOS - Wikipedia.png (3360x1952, 1.28M)

>(You)
>meh
Was is just because of the size?
Please point out what is wrong with it as I really do not see a problem.

Attached: 1612489852690.png (3840x2160, 1.25M)

That's looking fucking great, is there a command-line trick that works in Monterey?

thanks, I am not so well versed in fonts like others anons here so this helps a lot

I've used it for so many years I thought it was just the default. Either way it still looks a lot worse than Windows'.

It's still possible to do in Monterey with that command
>defaults -currentHost write -g AppleFontSmoothing -int 0

Attached: 1617247937180.png (3030x1408, 2.34M)

Attached: Screenshot_20220127_221003.png (1994x1340, 550.3K)

>How do I affect actual website fonts
Local stylesheet override. Make sure you use !important on the font family override.

Attached: Capture d’écran du 2022-01-27 21-39-50.png (1531x842, 380.51K)

zooming is cheating

>pic
nice font

>pic
absolutely shit font
my eyes hurt
how can you even look at it?!

Tbh it looks better when you zoomed in. But there are still veery small hints of bad subpixel rendering. It looks like your screen resolution is high enough, why don't you disable subpixel rendering altogether?

Haven't configured fonts at all since they look fine to me on 4K and a quite big TV, but I'll try it out to see how it looks. Thanks.

Just switched to Arch Linux

Attached: Thu Jan 27 03:45:15 PM CST 2022.png (1920x1080, 227.78K)

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

How do I unfuck my Linux font rendering on Ubuntu? It's just blurry, fuzzy, complete dog shit compared to Windows

install gentoo

Attached: arch-x11-broke-cancel-meetings.webm (800x600, 1.64M)

arch plasma

Attached: Screenshot_20220128_032332.png (2160x1440, 762.48K)

I've enabled full hinting and sub-pixel rendering. Is this as good as it gets with a 1366x768 screen?

Attached: 2022-01-27-230255_1366x768_scrot.png (1366x768, 442.67K)

Turn off anti aliasing.

they look the same

Also, make sure you are running at your screen's native resolution.

>1366x768
anything will look shit on that shit display

Liberation Sans Regular

Attached: Linux Wikipedia.png (1902x877, 403.53K)

Even 1080p is not enough to get decent looking fonts, upgrade your display user. 1080p ain't great, but it'll improve how your text looking a lot

==========================
STOP RIGHT THERE
==========================

IF YOU HAVE
>SUBPIXEL RENDERING
TURNED ON
YOU ARE A TOTAL IMBECILE

IT BREAKS EVERYTHING
PEOPLE SEE YOUR SCREENSHOTS *BROKEN*
ZOOMING IN IS BROKEN

TURN IT OFF
YOU IMBECILE

Attached: warning-icon-3.png (300x300, 29.77K)

eselect fontconfig list
Available fontconfig .conf files (* is enabled):
[5] 10-hinting-slight.conf *
[7] 10-scale-bitmap-fonts.conf *
[16] 20-unhint-small-vera.conf *
[18] 30-metric-aliases.conf *
[19] 40-nonlatin.conf *
[20] 45-generic.conf *
[21] 45-latin.conf *
[22] 49-sansserif.conf *
[23] 50-user.conf *
[24] 51-local.conf *
[25] 60-generic.conf *
[26] 60-latin.conf *
[28] 65-fonts-persian.conf *
[30] 65-nonlatin.conf *
[34] 69-unifont.conf *
[38] 80-delicious.conf *
[39] 90-synthetic.conf *

Attached: gentoofont.png (2513x1358, 533.6K)

Attached: file.png (1920x591, 279.58K)

subpixel rendering + lcdfilter default is fine.

elaborate pls sir

he's a hipster faggot on a CRT

eselect fontconfig disable 10-hinting-slight.conf
eselect fontconfig enable 10-hinting-full.conf
eselect fontconfig enable 10-sub-pixel-rgb.conf

Second test upload, pic looks blurrier than screen

Attached: 01-27-2022_1643321837.png (2511x1340, 509.69K)

LIST OF IMBECILES:

OP here, I don't have subpixel rendering enabled in that pic. It's just plain Ubuntu with grayscale font smoothing on a high DPI display.

Oh, forgot about this.

Here're the settings for and Available fontconfig .conf files (* is enabled):
[5] 10-hinting-slight.conf *
[7] 10-scale-bitmap-fonts.conf *
[16] 20-unhint-small-vera.conf *
[18] 30-metric-aliases.conf *
[19] 40-nonlatin.conf *
[20] 45-generic.conf *
[21] 45-latin.conf *
[22] 49-sansserif.conf *
[23] 50-user.conf *
[24] 51-local.conf *
[25] 60-generic.conf *
[26] 60-latin.conf *
[28] 65-fonts-persian.conf *
[30] 65-nonlatin.conf *
[32] 66-noto-mono.conf *
[33] 66-noto-sans.conf *
[34] 66-noto-serif.conf *
[35] 69-unifont.conf *
[38] 80-delicious.conf *
[39] 90-synthetic.conf *

you don't need a CRT to see this abomination of subpixel rendering

it's not fine
it's a disaster and it's gay

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering

calm down schizo

oops forget about it, apparently Ubuntu enables subpixel rendering by default. still, not looking bad desu

pic related: zoomed in this is so PATHETICALLY WRONG

pic related

Attached: Screenshot_20220127_232404.png (1900x932, 18.71K)

You should enable full hinting and subpixel rendering. See wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Fontconfig#Anti-aliasing.2C_hinting.2C_and_sub-pixel_rendering

Yes, OP here, you're right.

Will try it out. Thanks for the links.

based massreply retard

>still, not looking bad desu
it's not looking bad
your mom may be looking bad
it looks like LITERAL SHIT
KILL IT WITH FIRE
or just disable subpixel rendering in your options

Take your meds, it's looking fine on my machine

Your fonts vs my settings

Notice that every character of yours is thinner and wider. I'm not sure if I like it as much.

Ignore how shit the video is, I had to downscale. The screenshot here shows how clear it's meant to be.

Attached: font.webm (1920x1080, 767.29K)

If I upgrade my display, I'm gonna have trouble reading my 12px terminal bitmap font.

look closely at your screen
and you will see it
colorful edges: orange and blue (and other shitty colors for other subpixcel rendering variants)
and you won't be able to unsee them
and then you will ascend and turn this shit off

>Notice that every character of yours is thinner and wider.
Yes but it's clearer.

I literally can't see a problem, maybe my subpixels are too smol

Maybe see how it looks if you disable hinting.

it's a well known fact that gay and tranny people do not see subpixel rendering and many other issues in computing
that's why software quality is deteriorating so fast lately

Subpixel rendering is an obsolete technology that are made for small screens of the past. It should be used only in situations like . Grayscale antialiasing + high DPI monitor is the only combo to get good font rendering, everything else is useless.

Attached: Screenshot from 2022-01-27 17-54-54.png (1920x1080, 583.69K)

>Subpixel rendering is an obsolete technology that are made for small screens of the past.
THIS
>It should be used only in situations like .
It should NEVER be used.
>Grayscale antialiasing + high DPI monitor is the only combo to get good font rendering, everything else is useless.
THIS
FullHD 1080 monitor is already high DPI enough to turn this shit off

Do you even need antialiasing for high DPI screens?

that's GN*ME, not MacOS
also it has pathetic subpixel rendering

it’s a tiny screen user

>Grayscale antialiasing + high DPI monitor is the only combo to get good font rendering, everything else is useless.
/thread

OP here
Here's the same page with subpixel rendering disabled

Attached: Screenshot from 2022-01-28 00-10-43.png (2884x1862, 870.45K)

much better

based / checked

works on my eyes

Attached: Untitled.png (1903x953, 257.72K)

Attached: 1618970794923.png (496x360, 22.2K)

Don't use Linux
get a 4K tv

True and the same happens on every platform, when you connect a Mac to an external monitor all the fonts look blurry as fuck.

r8

Attached: e85ydg.png (1360x768, 319.08K)

rate my loonigz

Attached: loonig.png (1598x1674, 550.55K)

Attached: cjk.png (2131x2276, 361.94K)

ubuntu is bitmap

Ubuntu Mono
42
false
false
true

Ubuntu
42
false
false
true

Mac font rendering works fine on the internal retina display, but it's horrendous on my old 1080p 24 inch monitor, the text is barely readable.

SystemSettings5 -> Appearance -> Font
check font rendering options, especially Hinting

Attached: kde-systemsettings-font-rendering.png (460x240, 15.24K)

ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC AND DISGUSTING
pic related
>works on my eyes
Your eyes must be broken.
Those fonts do not pass.
Just like trannies do not pass as women.
Do your eyes find them attractive?

Attached: 1643334168846.png (880x328, 16.24K)

one more pathetic loser
see: and fix yourself

>it's a well known fact that gay and tranny people do not see subpixel rendering and many other issues in computing
>that's why software quality is deteriorating so fast lately
THIS

Does this also disable grayscale anti-aliasing? Without grayscale smoothing, fonts look also shitty.
As told before in this thread, the only way to get better font rendering is using a high DPI display with grayscale anti-aliasing

so Any Forums is really this retarded huh?

No.

Anti-Aliasing = grayscale anti-aliasing
Sub-pixel rendering = colorful rainbow anti-aliasing for people with gay eyes
Hinting = modifies font's shapes to better fit the space

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_rasterization
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinting

Attached: Screenshot 2022-01-28 at 11-07-39 Dejima - Wikipedia.png (1705x942, 642.52K)

is Tamsyn/Tamzen

why are you replying to me?

bump

I multi boot arch linux now, a
nd when I went back to windows I got burned because of the shitty font it has.

Attached: 1627220705218.png (1579x920, 458.33K)

Attached: 20220128_202026_maimscrot.png (1366x768, 387.54K)

How do I get decent font rendering in PDFs? Most viewers look like absolute dogshit, don't even have subpixel AA, just immensely blurry grayscale AA.

Yeah on Windows I feel fonts are too light. Most people seem to feel that way, since when they do gamma calibration they set it so the black-on-white text looks as bold as possible, not realizing they're screwing white-on-black text. Somebody from Microsoft commented on this, basically "not our problem, the fonts are that thin, just use bolder fonts".

Okular
works perfectly

Attached: windowsxp.png (2558x1440, 603.33K)

>KDE
Extreme bloat.

>the virgin smoothing
>the Chad aliasing

Attached: superior_rendering.png (1919x952, 109.8K)

Well this is me >_

Attached: IBMPlexSansNoHintingNoSubpixelRendering.png (1920x1080, 446.75K)

That's exactly what I said idiot.

Nothing, that's what PDF is for, it should look the same on all platforms.

Window's font rendering is really good. If it wasn't for that I don't think it'd have anything going for it. Hard to beat subpixel rendering for fonts at smaller scales

>KDE
extremely komfy
less bloat than GN*ME

Attached: kde-dolphin-terminal-sync.webm (1244x1023, 228.26K)

Attached: 1643403533334.png (2532x1170, 814.06K)

Sharing my .Xresources
Xft.dpi: 96
Xft.antialias: true
Xft.autohint: false
Xft.hinting: true
!Xft.hintstyle: hintfull
Xft.hintstyle: hintslight
Xft.rgba: rgb
Xft.lcdfilter: lcddefault

Any advice?

Disregard this, I changed to
Xft.dpi: 96
Xft.antialias: false
Xft.autohint: false
Xft.hinting: true
Xft.hintstyle: hintfull
!Xft.hintstyle: hintslight
Xft.rgba: rgb
Xft.lcdfilter: lcddefault

A big change!

yeah looks fine to me

So disabling antialias and enabling full hinting does change things on Linux

Attached: 1641972707403.png (1366x768, 366.99K)

another sub-pixel moron...

idiot you need sub pixel on low dpi screens

I don't have a hidpi screen moron.

no, you don't
just use normal (gray-scale) anti-aliasing

What is this dpi and how to git gud?

what about hinting?

>qutebrowser
based

select the one that looks best
it's almost always best to have at least slight hinting

I just confirmed you are a moron, you claim disabling sub pixel rendering is a must but disabling hinting is bad, hinting distorts the font making it look ugly, the best option is disabling hinting so the fonts are rendered the way the artist intended it to be.

because he fall in love with you

Nimbus Sans font

Attached: Screenshot 2022-01-29 at 00-25-39 Linux - Wikipedia.png (1024x1187, 346.6K)

ШPИФTЫ - ГOBHO

leave ukraine alone >:(

a business sized screen is 80 columns wide and 40 columns high. this is perfectly readable, certainly if this is a tv used from a couch, for example

DPI?
OS?

please rate mine

DejaVu is basically a remake of Helvetica as it was known before Apple fattened it up with their version. DejaVu is more like the Helvetica from posters and roadmarkings you'd see in the 60s than the Helvetica that comes with MacOS. "When in doubt, use DejaVu".

>hidpi monitor consumerism thread
>MS vs Apple corporate shill thread

accurate software rendering comparisons can only be made against the same monitor hardware, using the rendering options which are only exposed on free/libre software - typically precluding locked down shit like apple, and now increasingly, microsoft (W11 TPM, Pluton).

this type of thread is pure propaganda.
it includes no actual technological discussion, but merely celebrates slavery, or disputes which corporate master is "best"

Attached: zz-new.png (981x626, 598.4K)

But Helvetica looks much better

i literally can't see a difference

Attached: 1631609626860.png (227x222, 74.76K)

why tf is there so much empty space inbetween lines? no one else noticed this? there's enough room to type the entire god damn page twice.

>i post in active thread
>it immediately dies
You fags have one more bump to prove I'm not the only person on the internet

Sans = Carlito
Serif = Tinos
Mono = Cousine

Attached: Screenshot from 2022-01-29 14-30-10.png (1413x524, 184.69K)

I managed to perfectly emulate windows font rendering on ubuntu long ago

Attached: debian.png (1908x962, 408.68K)

Attached: fontrendeirngthread.jpg (1403x959, 64.99K)

Firefox has the worst reader mode

all browsers are terrible trash and the internet was a mistake
fuck everyone in this world

WOW... you are literally an idiot
sub-pixel rendering renders wrong colors and adds colors to black fonts. it's retarded and looks ugly and wrong.
hinting changes font, for better or worse, but it just modifies it. fuck artists, fonts are tools.

Attached: 39ABC025-91A3-4EFD-8DCA-BC0DF7AD6B1D.png (2160x1620, 790.29K)

why is it only good on mac

Attached: Screenshot 2022-01-29 at 17-45-46 Linux - Wikipedia.png (1588x1791, 650.12K)

>WOW... you are literally an idiot
Watch out! Hubris incoming!
>sub-pixel rendering renders wrong colors and adds colors to black fonts. it's retarded and looks ugly and wrong.
Subpixel rendering works by understanding how pixels work on your screen, how they're usually made up out of separate red, green and blue elements laid out in a consistent pattern. With a normal display pixel layout, you effectively get three times the horizontal density. BUT it is totally not designed to look great when you zoom in; it only works when you don't; to get a great zoom in, you'd need to recalculate all the pixel values from the model (eg, the font and the text) whenever you change the zoom.

this doesn't even work when not zooming in
there are always visible colors to the font
orange and blue
once you know it, you won't able to unsee them
it looks horrible
and pathetic
which fits you perfectly

These all look the same to me lmao. Maybe I'm just not a massive autist.

>business sized scree
Fuck up

Attached: ftview.png (658x527, 98.59K)