📌 Screenshots gallery! 😊 #557
Comments
|
I'll start... this is Win 10 with the BIB Dark Theme, and Clean Soft profile
|
|
That's really nice! What is the 'BIB Dark Theme' and where can I get it? I'd love to give it a try! 😃 |
|
@ChicoThorn sure, it's here https://www.deviantart.com/niivu/art/BIB-2-0-800970529 ... you'll need a few apps to get it working (in the theme description) make sure to create a System Restore point first |
|
Is this thread for all our screenshots instead of #550 like I've been posting too? Or is this for our showcase screenshots — that one you started with is a beauty @sammilucia! Are you running a 3rd party theme engine to display it, or is this just something you load directly into Windows using its native themes settings? |
|
嘿嘿嘿~ |
|
@ChicoThorn I've updated the first post with more info 😊 |
|
@cvuuhk wow! |
|
|
|
I've never seen VS Code look so good 😊Is your core the same as the main core? |
|
It's based on beta5 without the color font support. For Chrome I also hooked Regarding VSCode you can find my DirectWrite parameters and CSS settings in #401 |
|
Hi @sammilucia & @snowie2000! I've been tinkering with the DirectWrite settings some more with the ChicoThorn ini and think I've struck a pretty good balance between how Lite Mode and Dark Mode render at 113%! I'm posting these two samples, plus the .ini file for you to check out. The settings for the Sys32 app rendering (ClearType) remain the same as the original ChicoThorn; only the DirectWrite settings have been changed: [DirectWrite] - RenderingMode=5, GammaValue=1.77, Contrast=0.5, 🙂
beta6 ChicoThorn @ 113% scaling - LightMode - DW r5,g1.77,c5,t5.png.zip beta6 ChicoThorn @ 113% scaling - DarkMode - DW r5,g1.77,c5,t5.zip |
|
@ChicoThorn that does look like a pretty good balance, though I still much prefer the dark mode with that font weight. You know, we could have MacType support Windows Dark Mode by allowing you to specify a second set of some parameters that are automatically used when Windows is in Dark Mode 😊 @snowie2000 😁 |
|
According to this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51334674/how-to-detect-windows-10-light-dark-mode-in-win32-application I think, yes, we can. But it can’t be changed midway, a program restart is necessary to reflect the change of the theme. |
|
I agree @sammilucia I think it's better in Dark Mode too (but then I LOVE Dark Mode, lol!) That's a fantastic idea about supporting auto light/dark mode! 😁 |
|
Hi! Been messing around with the settings a bunch — took a bizillion screen shots and think I've found a real winner! I'm finishing up at work, so I can't post samples right now... but the only changes I made to the ChicoThorn.ini was to add more fonts to the font replacement list (I was having difficulty with a helvetica replacement in Edge Canary, but was able to fix it), and in DirectWrite. Here's the DirectWrite settings I used... give 'em a try. I'll post samples soon. 😊 [DirectWrite] Oh! ... And I experimented with a lot of different scaling sizes and schemes. I've settled on a custom scaling factor of 125. Note: I did not set the 125 scaling using the dropdown menu on the first page of Display, but by using the Advanced scaling settings on the second page, same as for odd sizes... I found that doing it this way renders ALL text on ALL surfaces better than doing it the other way.... although I have no idea why... 😁 |
|
Hi! My latest settings — and I think beyond a doubt they are the best yet! 😊 These settings work in BOTH Dark and Light mode, provide a soft, but clear rendering on even the most troublesome areas (The Settings home page, Jumplists, and the Start Menu). Below are some Dark and Light mode screenshots. Note that these settings were tweaked to work best with 113% — I've found after a LOT of experimentation, that 113% provides a clearer overall rendering than 115%. Not only is the type rendering with 113% clearer, but the icons used in File Explorer ribbon and Quick Access Toolbar display much better as well, being crisp and clear. Whereas in 115% those same icons are fuzzy. Also the 113% size allows for more room on the display for multiple windows and processes — unlike 125%, for example, which renders beautifully, but everything is so large there's barely enough screen room to get any work done. I made a change to the non-DirectWrite settings as well, which you can see below; they're the ones I marked in bold-italic. I've also included a copy of the .ini file which I've dubbed "ChicoThorn 113%.ini" Let me know what you think! 😃 ; by ChicoThorn [Preview] [General] [Experimental] [Experimental@chrome.exe] [Experimental@idea64.exe] [FontSubstitutes] [Individual] [DirectWrite] [UnloadDll] ChicoThorn 113% Screenshots.zip
|
|
@ChicoThorn wow, that's really impressive, the Light/Dark and DirectWrite/GDI look as comparable as I've ever seen them ❤️ 😊 That desktop background is really pretty, what is that? What does it mean when you put at @ in front of a font e.g: |
|
@sammilucia Kindly remind you, "@ arial" is a valid github user name...🤣🤣 @ChicoThorn I was always wondering how did you get the magic number of 113%? |
|
Derp 😜 |
|
@sammilucia — Thanks! I was really pleased when I compared the Light Mode to Dark Mode and found that they both worked! WooHoo!! 😃 I cast that .ini file in GOLD! Hahaha! The desktop image is one of my own creating... You may have it to enjoy on your computer if you like, and a couple others of the same theme... ☺ The "@ arial" thing is because "@ Arial Unicode MS" was one of the font names presented to me in the MacTuner font replacement dialog... and I figured if it was an Arial font I wanted it replaced with Segoe UI. Not really sure why it has an "@" sign though... but I did notice a couple of other Windows system fonts that had that same designation. I took the approach with font replacement that more was better than less; figuring that if a certain font wasn't present it wouldn't hurt anything if it was there. Some of the fontnames in my list are there because of online screen rendering while using Edge Canary on certain pages. When I did an "inspect element" of the font I'd learn its name, then add it to my font replacement list. This has worked well so far! The weirdest font replacement I have is "Segoe UI=Segoe UI" That one's totally odd, isn't it? But if it's not there then for some unknown reason the Facebook page in Edge Canary renders the page in a Segoe UI font that doesn't come from my system at all (I know that because of the custom glyphs I have embedded in my own version of Segoe UI). But when I did the seemingly redundant font replacement, it solved the problem and it now uses my version of Segoe UI. — I gotta say, I'm learning a ton of stuff I never even thought about before! 😄 @snowie2000 — I came upon the 113% number purely by trial and error. I basically went through every size from 100% to 127%; setting the scaling factors using the "Advanced scaling settings" in Windows, then signing out and back in; then taking screenshots of the many surfaces text and type were rendered on (File Explorer, Context menu, Start Menu, Notification Panel, Taskbar Jumplists, Properties dialog, UWP apps, etc.) Then after I had collected all the screenshots I created a comparison "tally-sheet" where I visually checked each one against the others. I checked for overall "font color" (the way the font appears in a block of text: is it even and uniform in overall appearance, or are some areas dark and blotchy and/or are other areas light and sketchy?). Then I checked the same text string in each size against the others, looking more directly this time at the individual glyphs, their shape and formation and how well the strokes and bowls of each was rendered. Then I checked for overall font size and its impact on day-to-day usefulness — It's easy to get clear type with the larger sizes since there are more pixels per glyph to go around, but for everyday use overly large sizes are difficult to work with since they take up so much screen space. So I was aiming for a size that was easy to read, but also easy to work with. I narrowed that range down to 110% to 121%. Then I lived with each of the settings from 110% to 121% for at least one day each during my regular work use of my computer. I wanted to see on the fly how well the rendering overall felt to me. When something would appear that jolted my eye, I made note of it. As I began to narrow things down, I also paid attention to what effect the scaling factor was having on other system elements, particularly icons, emojis, favicons and the like. I found, for example, that at 115% File Explorer's Ribbon icons and the smaller Quick Access Toolbar icons were all unpleasantly fuzzy and out of focus. This was true for the Ribbon icons in Paint and other apps as well. After all was said and done it was the magic size of 113% that seemed to hit the nail on the head for all parameters: The font/text/type rendering was spot on, the icon displays were clear and crisp and the size was pleasing and easy to read, but still small enough as to not take up a lot of screen real estate. 😁 I've been using the 113% scaling and the most recent ini settings for a few days now, and I haven't stumbled upon any problems that I felt required further tinkering... I've also learned now that although it's possible to use the same .ini settings file between different scaling sizes, I found it's best to fine-tune each scaling size with its own .ini settings as slight nuances in how the text/type is rendered between sizes does occur. I'll keep you posted as I go along should any new developments arise! 😊 Here are those Desktop images... enjoy! 😃 |
The "@" sign means vertical writing in Windows.1
Wow I just thought it was the midpoint of 100% and 125%. |
|
125% Configuration is using someone else's :D |
|
@domo891208 gorgous! 😊 😊 |
|
I suppose I should post my latest effort.
|
|
Too much jpeg artifacting. |
@domo891208 Thank you.😁 |
|
|
|
My most recent ini files. @sammilucia , @snowie2000 — Would it be possible to add this latest ini to the new 2021 release? That'd be awesome if you could! 😀 It's my best effort yet. The name could be 'ChicoThorn Sharp' . I've attached both variations: Other than the font substitution list the ini files are identical. Perhaps the one with the smaller font sub list would be the best for release? — Also I've tested these ini files with many different point sizes, so there's no need to classify it only for scaled up displays. They also render beautifully in both Dark and Light Modes. Also, please let me know how I can help troubleshoot the new pre-release. I just downloaded it and will install it shortly! Excited to see how well it works! — Thanks @snowie2000 for all your hard work! 😊 ChicoThorn Sharp INIs-2021.06.02-0835.zip
|
|
Just installed the new MacType 2021.1-rc1... Wow! It really renders well! I used the same ini file I uploaded above (ChicoThorn Sharp-2021.06.02-0835) and compared Screenshots from 2021.1-rc1 with Screenshots from MacType beta6· 2019.06.21 and there is a subtle difference between the two. The new version seems to render sharper, crisper, and clearer than before; it's truly a remarkable difference! I really like it! I'm going to experiment with the new ArmBreaker setting and will be updating my ini file soon to reflect that change. Here are the new Screenshots from 2021.1-rc1: ChicoThorn Sharp-Screenshots-NEW MacType 2021.1-rc1-2021.06.02-0835.zip ChicoThorn Sharp INIs-2021.06.02-0835.zip
|
|
I have a new ini utilizing the ArmBreaker setting, and it's great! I'm moving my progress on my ini experiments back to #651 🙂 |
|
Thank you for your great great work, and sure, I will release an "enhanced" version which will include your new profile and a bunch of hard work from @sammilucia. She was too busy on her work recently but still managed to optimize the default and global configs and profiles of mactype. But I released this version in a hurry because the crashes caused by CET are just exploding with the rolling out of the new Windows 10 update (update? version? build? whatever...), it has to be ceased. And now the major problem is solved, we have more time to polish it and push it final. |
That's awesome! Thank you so much @snowie2000 ! It's great to have a new version to experiment with! And thanks to @sammilucia for all her hard work as well! You guys rock! |
|
@ChicoThorn why i get no sidebar icons and x when use your .ini in vscode? |
Check the font substitutions. I have set quite a few in the ChicoThorn INI. Also I'm not sure which version of my INI you're using, but I'm attaching the latest version with the fewest font substitutes. In the INI file you can delete any of the font substitutes I set that you don't want or don't work with your system. I don't use vscode so this may or may not be the issue. |
|
Updated my Noto CJK config with 2021.1-rc1 with service mode |
|
@nostam What do you mean by "without specifying the substitute font weight"? You did use font subsubsitution a lot in your profile. |
Sorry I couldn't reproduce it now, it was the input box here another case is with MS PGothic (ver. 5.32), my windows region is Japan, this rule was enabled w/o any issue before upgrading to RC1 enabled substitution w/ MS PGothic disable \substitution w/ MS PGothic I do not notice any other apps that are effected by this at this moment, it could be vscode fault / fonts issue (?) |
|
Just upgraded MacType to the RC1 version, everything works fine for me, including the known titlebar problem. 😄 |
|
Here we go ^_^ By using my own profile: MacType-Profile |
|
There's no screenshot here, what I want to tell is the tuning of Mactype profile. It should have been a long story, I'll make it short. After thousands times of test. The keeeey parameter to improve contrast/ saturation is LCDFilterweight, which is barely used. And it's definately not Renderweight/ Normalweight/ Contrast. Before all of this, you may need to know what LCDFilterweight is since there is no Wiki. It defines the weight of 5 sub strokes of each stroke. LCDFilterweight=16,64,112,64,16 when LCDfilter=2, the text is too soft due to the number 64 is too small. And it's 0,80,85,80,0 when LCDfilter=1, the text looks like minor ink overflowing with glitches due to the number 80 is too close to 85 and 0 is not proper. So people always increase Renderweight/ Normalweight/ Contrast to make it solid, that make the text out of its designed shape, such as round corner getting sharp, and glithes, especially when using CJK fonts. To solve this problem, I tried thousands times, and found the result as below. Let's call these numbers A,B,C,D,E. Basic theroy:
Advanced theroy:
Plus, I found why Apple set their Gamma to 1.8, text which is solid enough might be also overcolored, so larger Gamma value makes it lighter for the sake of balance. My case:
According to the theories above, 175 and 100 can't be turned over. To avoid the text from being out of shape, these basic parameters are needed:
Glitches exist whether you can see them, to avoid, these parameters are needed:
To avoid white text from getting blurry, such as desktop icon label, use grey shadow instead of black shadow:
For Centbrowser, it has its own Gamma which is corrected from reference Chromium, shadow is also different, somehow reversed?
My profile here, you can use it as reference, copying might not get good effect since the density of pixel of your screens is varible (aks PPI). If you are interested, post your own screenshots. |
|
Hi Guys. I used MacType for CentBrowser, because it supports DirectWrite's option. But in the current time I want to use an another browser with DirectWrite. Maybe you know any browsers when MacType will work well? Thanks |
|
催更新催到这来了。。。真的服 |
|
@happydaf Opera browser seems to be using a rendering method that's the most affected by MacType... you could try that? @ssssssbbb same, I wish they would update CentBrowser |
|
someone was asking for a nice system font replacement a while back ... Cantarell is gorgeous. not the one on Google Fonts... the one used by Fedora (which is a newer version and much better) https://download.gnome.org/sources/cantarell-fonts/0.301/ |
|
on the above, don't use Cantarell from Google, it renders REALLY weirdly. instead download Cantarell 0.301 from the Fedora distro and convert it from OTF to TTF (using convertio or similar)... here's what it looks like 😊 |
Hi @sammilucia! — I tried downloading Cantarell 0.301 from the link you first provided but got a format I'm completely unfamiliar with, and was unable to use. On your newest post about using Fedora distro, I can't seem to find what or where that is... or is it the same link as before? — If so, how do I get it from a .tar file to an .otf or .ttf? — 'lil help, please... Thanks! 🙂 |
|
@ChicoThorn here you are 😊 I believe these are okay to distribute. The TTF is the one I fixed that I'm using 😊 |
@sammilucia Thank you!! 😊 |
|
@ChicoThorn there's also IBM Plex Sans, and Inter |
Thank you @sammilucia ! I will give them a look-see! Much appreciated! I always love new fonts!! 😀 |
这个配置文件可以分享一下么。 |
|
@QingShui23 available in https://github.com/chawyehsu/mactype-profile |
有没有鸿蒙字体的版本？我现在自己改了下，但是在某些程序上出现了一些奇怪的问题、图片如下。
|
and others
Share your beautiful desktop and MacType Profile here 😊
Many of the themes will use UltraUXThemePatcher, OldNewExplorer, and StartIsBack (as well as the latest release of MacType of course 😊)
If you are new to using these tools, please create a System Restore point before you begin.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: