Photoshop CS3 Text Anti-Aliasing

[dpaanlka]

I have Photoshop CS3 and I noticed that it's text anti-aliasing is awful compared to the standard Mac OS X anti-aliasing. I've tried every anti-alias setting and I can't get it to look as good as TextEdit's version:

Photoshop CS3:



TextEdit 1.4:



What is that all about? Can I fix that?

 

[Blue Velvet]

The final file that you're aiming for in Photoshop, is that a GIF? If so, you may get better results by using the smooth setting and ensuring there are enough colours in the final GIF to fully display all the tonal values of the anti-aliasing.

 

[dpaanlka]

The final file that you're aiming for in Photoshop, is that a GIF? If so, you may get better results by using the smooth setting and ensuring there are enough colours in the final GIF to fully display all the tonal values of the anti-aliasing.

Actually, that was a screenshot from inside Photoshop while working on a Photoshop file!

 

[iMeowbot]

Photoshop won't use the native OS X anti-aliasing because that would break cross-platform compatibility. That is a shame if you prefer the Apple method.

If you'd like to soften the text up slightly, you can try an outer glow, same color as the text fill, one pixel size, play with the opacity and technique until you're a little happier with the result.

You have lots more options (including grabbing the pixels from TextEdit or whatever produces results you like) if you're willing to work with raster text in PS.

 

[snickelfritz]

Photoshop display quality is only accurate at 12.5, 25, 50, and 100%.
"Actual Pixels" is the only truly accurate setting, especially if you're evaluating layer effects.

 

[dpaanlka]

Photoshop display quality is only accurate at 12.5, 25, 50, and 100%.
"Actual Pixels" is the only truly accurate setting, especially if you're evaluating layer effects.

Yup... viewing at 100% (actual pixels).

 

[fisha]

Its because the Adobe rendering is doing full-pixel anti-aliasing and the OSX rendering is doing sub-pixel anti-aliasing. ( Read up on clear-type and the like and it should go a good way to explaining the difference )

Considering the context of Photoshop, its probably better that its kept to full-pixel because of the way in which your using the pixels as part of a composited layer image one of top of the other. So the render engine takes the whole pixel colour value from each layer at that position and then generates the final display colour.

If you were to split that into sub-pixels, it would generate a whole lot more work for the display... roughly 3 times the amount of processing.

 

[mikelikespie]

Its because the Adobe rendering is doing full-pixel anti-aliasing and the OSX rendering is doing sub-pixel anti-aliasing. ( Read up on clear-type and the like and it should go a good way to explaining the difference )

Considering the context of Photoshop, its probably better that its kept to full-pixel because of the way in which your using the pixels as part of a composited layer image one of top of the other. So the render engine takes the whole pixel colour value from each layer at that position and then generates the final display colour.

If you were to split that into sub-pixels, it would generate a whole lot more work for the display... roughly 3 times the amount of processing.

Actually, I don't think he's using sub-pixel anti aliasing with OS X. If you zoom in on the image rendered with OS X all the pixels are gray scale and not different colors on the edges (which is how sub-pixel hinting works).

 

[ezekielrage_99]

I have personally found the majority of the new release of Adobe products are pretty god awful. Tweaky, buggy, medicore quality and slow I'm thinking Adobe will have to lift its game.

 

[williamhtrice]

better anti-aliasing in CS3

Hi everyone, I'm using Photoshop CS3 and recently discovered a MUCH improved way to get nicely anti-aliased text out of photosop for screen use...

Create your artwork at doube resolution, and once you're done, flatten it and resample it to 50% using the bicubic algo (smooth/standard/sharp at your discression). The result is dramatically better antialiasing... an example is attached...

The left hand image is using photoshop's "smooth" antialiasing; the right hand image was made using "smooth" and then reduced to 50% using "bicubic (best for smooth gradients)" resampling...

RESULT? dramatic improvement! better balance of sharpness (compare the body and dot of the "i" in the two images). Much smoother type (see top of "a"). Just miles nicer!

I think my method gives the OSX anti-aliasing a run for its money...



Awesome huh?

Ricey

 

[design-is]

Good tip williamhtrice - thanks for sharing