Slashdot Mirror
Scaling Algorithm Bug In Gimp, Photoshop, Others
Wescotte writes "There is an important error in most photography scaling algorithms. All software tested has the problem: The Gimp, Adobe Photoshop, CinePaint, Nip2, ImageMagick, GQview, Eye of Gnome, Paint, and Krita. The problem exists across three different operating systems: Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows. (These exceptions have subsequently been reported — this software does not suffer from the problem: the Netpbm toolkit for graphic manipulations, the developing GEGL toolkit, 32-bit encoded images in Photoshop CS3, the latest version of Image Analyzer, the image exporters in Aperture 1.5.6, the latest version of Rendera, Adobe Lightroom 1.4.1, Pixelmator for Mac OS X, Paint Shop Pro X2, and the Preview app in Mac OS X starting from version 10.6.) Photographs scaled with the affected software are degraded, because of incorrect algorithmic accounting for monitor gamma. The degradation is often faint, but probably most pictures contain at least an array where the degradation is clearly visible. I believe this has happened since the first versions of these programs, maybe 20 years ago."
Mac OS X's font rendering is different [joelonsoftware.com], but calling it "far superior" is simply platform evangelism.
It's not platform evangelism when it is general consensus among experts, that is, typeface designers and font engineers, that one remains true to what was originally intended.
The same issue occurs with color calibration in displays--consumers often prefer the "dynamic" or oversaturated modes on their televisions, at the expense of proper calibration and color gamut matching. A calibrated display is far superior than one that is not.
It may be a particular user's subjective preference to use the uncalibrated display, and there is nothing wrong with that. But it is plainly inferior in any technical analysis.
Same with Windows font rendering. It is plainly inferior in all objective measures of typeface fidelity. A preference for the Windows style, arising mainly out of familiarity, is perfectly fine.
Subjective taste is subjective. Measurably fidelity is not, and handwaving about one being suited more to a given task than another doesn't make it so.
Windows takes liberties with the shape and spacing of on-screen text in order to line it up with the pixel grid, which is good for tasks like word processing and programming (where legibility on screen is more important)
The link you provided does not support that argument. Legibility is not a significant issue. The difference is one of comfort and familiarity.
I personally find that working in Windows-based terminals on LCD monitors is far more straining than Mac-based ones or CRT monitors--the text is too sharp and loses distinctiveness. The image in Spolsky's article clearly shows that effect...the upper line (Apple) is far more legible to me. Others may be accustomed to something else, and that's fine, but it's flat-out falsehood to claim that grid priority makes for better onscreen legibility.
One is not more suited to anything than the other, with the exception being that the Mac's system is more suited to remaining true to the typeface design.