ie8 fix
madison

Real World IT

George Ou
Home / News & Blogs / Real World IT

Why ClearType doesn't work in Portrait mode

By | July 16, 2007, 6:23am PDT

Summary: [Update 8/17/2007 - Vista puts Mac OS X font rendering to shame]  I made an interesting observation over the weekend that almost had me thinking I was seeing things.  As it turns out I wasn’t seeing things and font rendering technology like Windows ClearType won’t work in “Portrait” (Vertical) display mode on LCD panels.  That means [...]

[Update 8/17/2007 - Vista puts Mac OS X font rendering to shame] 

I made an interesting observation over the weekend that almost had me thinking I was seeing things.  As it turns out I wasn’t seeing things and font rendering technology like Windows ClearType won’t work in “Portrait” (Vertical) display mode on LCD panels.  That means if you have an LCD that supports Landscape to Portrait rotation; the text is utterly unreadable if something like ClearType is enabled.  This also means that people who have “Slate” Tablet PCs that are held vertically simply will also have a hard time rendering text because ClearType becomes CrapType in vertical display mode.

Here’s a side by side comparison of my display shot through my Digital SLR at maximum zoom at the closest range.  I was able to pick up the pixels so I can illustrate this effect.  The image on top is ClearType operating in the vertical orientation (Portrait) and the image on the bottom is ClearType operating in normal horizontal mode (Landscape).

As you can see, the rendering on top is atrocious especially if you look at the letter “m” while the bottom image looks fairly clean.  This phenomenon is described in this blog by Brandon Furtwangler where he uses a synthetic image to illustrate the effects.  Basically, LCD displays are lined up in columns of RGB (Red Green Blue) pixels and ClearType leverages that to produce clearer text.  But in Portrait mode the mechanism results in ugly text because the columns of RGB turn in to rows of RGB.

ClearType was actually something I praised in Vista (and still do for normal Landscape mode) but the Portrait mode absolutely stinks.  Microsoft either needs to come up with a ClearType that works in Portrait mode or at least automatically disable ClearType when the display is in Portrait mode but re-enabled for Landscape mode.  Please fix this Microsoft!

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Real World IT”

Topics

ClearType, Mode, George Ou

Disclosure

George Ou

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?page_id=557

Biography

George Ou

George Ou, a former ZDNet blogger, is an IT consultant specializing in Servers, Microsoft, Cisco, Switches, Routers, Firewalls, IDS, VPN, Wireless LAN, Security, and IT infrastructure and architecture.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
43
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Why ClearType doesn't work in Portrait mode
Not on either side 12th Jun
Thats another thing you used a camera to take the picture...You really need to do better research.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Didn't notice a differnce...Until
voska 16th Jul 2007
I didn't notice a difference. So here I was trying to figure out what you problem was. Then I rolled back in my chair and stretch. That's when the difference really appeared. Stand back a bit and the portrait shot looks terrible. Up close where I normally sit I can't hardly tell the difference.
0 Votes
+ -
Look at the letter m and a again
georgeou 16th Jul 2007
Look at the letter m and a again. It's not my imagination I can assure you of that.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm looking
Bozzer 16th Jul 2007
But I cannot find Waldo anywhere.

The difference is purely cosmetic. I can still read the text from across the room.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't get it!
ShadeTree 16th Jul 2007
Both appear quite readable. Although you can notice more of the smoothing artifacts in the top picture it is hardly what I would call unreadable.
0 Votes
+ -
Look at the letter m again. It should be quite obvious.
georgeou 16th Jul 2007
Look at the letter m again, especially the vertical lines. It should be quite obvious. This is actually a well known issue with a technical cause for it.
0 Votes
+ -
We are looking.
Bozzer 16th Jul 2007
But there really isn't THAT much difference. Have you ever considered it might just be you and not everyone else?
0 Votes
+ -
No it's real
georgeou 16th Jul 2007
It is not my imagination.
0 Votes
+ -
Pure Sensationalism
Bozzer 16th Jul 2007
"As you can see, the rendering on top is atrocious"

Granted it isn't as good as the lower screen shot, it is hardly atrocious. I can read it quite well. Perhaps you need to visit the opticians or preferably limit the amount of exaggeration in your posts.
0 Votes
+ -
Thats cause the image is a blow up
nmh 16th Jul 2007
If you shrank it back down to a normal size the top image would be very blurry whereas the bottom image would have good definition.

There may be some exaggeration to George's post but I certainly wouldn't want to spend a long time looking at text rendered in the same way as the top image and I would agree that it should be sorted out.
0 Votes
+ -
Try it yourself - No difference
Bozzer 16th Jul 2007
I have just shrank the image provided in Photoshop several times and there really is little difference. Try it for yourself.

I imagine he used black on grey. Perhaps black on white just wasn't working for him.
0 Votes
+ -
This is a photograph of the actual screen.
ShadeTree 16th Jul 2007
It is not uncommon in this case for a white background to appear gray.
0 Votes
+ -
You're exactly right, it was a white background
georgeou 16th Jul 2007
You're exactly right, it was a white background. It looks completely white but blown up you can see the gaps between the pixels making it look grey.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah I have taken a few pixel shots myself(nt)
ShadeTree 16th Jul 2007
.
0 Votes
+ -
That's a pointless suggestion
aep528 16th Jul 2007
You need to try this by rotating an actual monitor, not shrinking pictures of the monitor. Shrinking pictures in no way represents how the hardware renders the text. And neither does displaying a picture of a monitor screen on a different monitor screen.
0 Votes
+ -
I have better than 20 20 vision, good color, and depth perception.
georgeou 16th Jul 2007
I have better than 20 20 vision, good color, and depth perception. My eyes are quite good.
0 Votes
+ -
Almost no difference, but ...
Rick_R 16th Jul 2007
I'm looking at the images on a 17" LCD monitor with WinXP not at actual ClearType text on a Vista machine but they look almost identical. Maybe the effect is much more obvious under actual conditions but from looking at the images there's virtually no difference.

Does Vista/ClearType have anti-aliasing or similar technology and changing those settings might make a difference? Is it perhaps the specific monitor or monitor model? Does it matter which font is being used?
0 Votes
+ -
Why is the background such a dark color?
KWierso 16th Jul 2007
I'm sure if you had a nicely contrasting background color, it'd show up much better...
0 Votes
+ -
This was a pure white background
georgeou 16th Jul 2007
It was a white background. It looks completely white but blown up from a photograph you can see the gaps between the pixels making it look grey. Try taking a zoomed in photo yourself of your own LCD and you'll see this same thing.
0 Votes
+ -
Sub-pixel rendering
frgough 16th Jul 2007
The issue here is subpixel rendering gets whacked because the RGB order changes.

The solution for Cleartype is simple: download the tuning wizard and re-adjust your cleartype settings when in landscape or portrait mode.

BTW, nice intimation that all sub-pixel rendering algorithms suffer from this problem. That may or may not be the case. It depends on whether the subpixel rendering is smarter on Linux or OS X and recognizes the monitor twist.
0 Votes
+ -
Since Microsoft is incapable of innovation....
ShadeTree 16th Jul 2007
.... they must have stolen this from either Linux or OSX and therefore one or the other or both will exhibit this same issue. Aren't you being just a little over sensitive?
0 Votes
+ -
OSX doesnt have this issue (NT)
Stuka 16th Jul 2007
(NT)
0 Votes
+ -
How did yverify that?(nt)
ShadeTree 16th Jul 2007
.
0 Votes
+ -
Wait a second...
Kid Icarus-21097050858087920245213802267493 16th Jul 2007
Whose being just a little over sensitive?!?
0 Votes
+ -
Look up sarcasm in the dictionary.(nt)
ShadeTree 16th Jul 2007
.
0 Votes
+ -
The problem
frgough 16th Jul 2007
with your analysis is that you forget that MS makes half-a$$ed copies, so of course it only makes sense their rip-off would be crap.
0 Votes
+ -
The problem with your analysis ....
ShadeTree 16th Jul 2007
... is you are completely blinded by your hatred of Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm sorry
frgough 17th Jul 2007
I assumed since you were being snide in your response, you would recognize a response in the same tone.

I have better things to do with my life than waste it hating a corporation. I'll leave that to tree-hugging greenpeace types.
0 Votes
+ -
It's not the order of RGB that's the problem, it's the direction
georgeou 17th Jul 2007
RGB is stacked horizontally where the RED, Green, and Blue pixels line up top to bottom when the screen is in its normal horizontal state. The problem is when you change that to being stacked from top to bottom.
0 Votes
+ -
I couldn't see much difference...
bportlock 18th Jul 2007
... in George's screenshots and my eyesight is good enough to let me have a pilot's licence!

So I tried it on my daughter's XP machine with cleartype on and rotated the display into portrait mode. It did get slightly fuzzier but it is a long way from being "atrocious"
0 Votes
+ -
Ugkk, where's the Advil?!?
Kid Icarus-21097050858087920245213802267493 16th Jul 2007
I've never found ClearType to be acceptable on any XP box I've worked on, it's the first thing to be shut off, if it's on. Not sure if it is any better in the Vista domain.

I'd rather look at jaggedy type all day then go home with a headache from fuzzed up text that never really makes your text,..uh CLEAR.
0 Votes
+ -
Ergonomics studies have proven ....
ShadeTree 16th Jul 2007
... that font smoothing is easier on your eyes. The headaches and tired eyes are caused by sharp lines and high contrast.
0 Votes
+ -
Huh, that's funny
Kid Icarus-21097050858087920245213802267493 16th Jul 2007
those studies conflict with my own findings....
0 Votes
+ -
I have never found ClearType acceptable on XP, but Vista is good
georgeou 16th Jul 2007
I have never found ClearType acceptable on XP or before, but Vista ClearType looks good (in horizontal mode). Before Vista I've always turned off ClearType.
0 Votes
+ -
I thought you were crazy, however,
CoolbeansG 16th Jul 2007
after a third look, I saw a little red pixelation on the upper m. If you look close you can see it. By George your not seeing things.
0 Votes
+ -
No this is a well known issue
georgeou 16th Jul 2007
And you can see the red pixelation around a lot of the characters. It definitely ruins the fonts.
0 Votes
+ -
1/2 right.
dberlow 16th Jul 2007
George, thanks for the interesting comments.

Half right means, the portrait behavior of CT is not Bad, it's just different and
nearly impossible for the type (the digital outline being rendered), to react to
portrait mode with equal adroitness. CRT and CT also do not mix, and CT in
general has been made for advanced WYSIWYG, as opposed to advanced screen
reading.

In addition, tripling the resolution in one dimension has its drawbacks, and you
may be pointing to one, but since CT does not do this, (instead, allowing colors
that are not black to be used to represent black), then I'd advise not to repeat that
particular inaccuracy.:)

Cheers!
0 Votes
+ -
Blurry is just "different"? I think not!
georgeou 16th Jul 2007
If you're seeing red bleeding over on both sides of a vertical line, that's not just different that's ugly!
0 Votes
+ -
Three solutions
tonymcs@... 16th Jul 2007
Don't use your display in portrait mode (and let's face it only a very small percentage do), use the other anti-aliasing rendering system or put up with a tiny bit of red on Ms - I've put up with a lot worse before.

Either way it's really just an interesting little fact rather than a big PROBLEM.
0 Votes
+ -
That's not a solution
georgeou 16th Jul 2007
Microsoft needs to at least have an auto-shutdown mode for portrait mode on ClearType. The preferred solution is that they fix the problem in portrait mode.
0 Votes
+ -
One question
Xwindowsjunkie 17th Jul 2007
Was the monitor connected using the DVI or the analog interface?
0 Votes
+ -
DVI on a Dell 20" LCD
georgeou 17th Jul 2007
DVI on a Dell 20" LCD at 1680x1050 resolution.
0 Votes
+ -
The "upside down" landscape is worse
mh001 4th Sep 2007
Not only ClearType is bad in portrait mode, it is worse on a tablet when the display is upside down from the normal landscape. see it discussed and demo'ed here:
http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/showthread.php?t=10003
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Why ClearType doesn't work in Portrait mode
Not on either side 12th Jun
Thats another thing you used a camera to take the picture...You really need to do better research.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix