CS6 (64bit) text rendering problem

Screen shot looks OK, or am I not picky enough?  Have 24 in monitor.

Guess I am blind, put them up on 2 sceens side by side and did not see any difference.

The Ps type is clearly not as heavy as the other example, plus the Ps antialiasing is crap.

The latter can be improved by using gamma 1 blending. The control is in the Advanced section of Edit > Color Settings.

Enlarged them to 2.75 inches on F on my screen and they look about the same.  Maybe some one else will have a different opinion.

Perhaps loose something on a screen save.

Sharp would have the best antialiasing.

And that looks like the other sample is at a higher resolution (not seeing pixels, like you do in the PS sample).

Chris Cox:  Why would text edges blend poorly on one system at gamma 1.0 and require 2.0 to look right, yet on another system look best at 1.0?  Sounds like an interaction with something else...

-Noel

Here's 200 ppi documents since that's close to what the OP used, I believe. One with blending at gamma 1, the other at gamma 2.2. Miles apart in edge quality.

ogunduz wrote:

 

Blend text colors using Gamma was 1,45. I changed it to 1. Stil same, exactly same crappy rendering

There's something wrong if gamma 1.0 and 1.45 look the same, especially if they look "exactly same". They should look different and they do look different on my setup, and 1.0 has best anti-aliasing.

See my example above. Do you see that, there at least, gamma 1.0 gives far better edges than gamma 2.2?

By the way, disabling the text option results in text using the general RGB blending option, which defaults to 2.2, not 2.1.

ogunduz wrote:

 

In your example, gamma 2.2 is better- gamma 1.0 is crap.

You must be joking!

The images I posted show distinct stair steps on the 2.2 edges. The edges are much smoother at gamma 1.0.

I am pretty good with typography I spent many years doing this a when I started out using computer type, photo type and hot type. I can tell you from personal experience that what you call better and what the next person calls better will only rarely match.

What you are seeing can also be, in these times a question of screen draw and may not be seen the same way on another screen and even if they did appear the same they may not be agreed upon by all parties.

It is like Nikon versus Canon. Tell a Canon user Nikon is sharper and they say no tell Nikon users Canon is sharper and they know better.

The best way though to find out if which rendering is best is to get a match print if printing on press. Honest do not trust what you see  on screen.

We are obviously seeing different things.  To me the gamma 1.0 rendering looks smoothest.

I'm thinking it must be a monitor calibration issue, or some other kind of signal issue.

-Noel