Why font in Pages looks bad?

With the same size and same font, why the way the fonts look in Pages compared to Office Word or even TextEdit, looks kinda crappy and not as smooth as Office Word and TextEdit will display?
How to make it look smooth? It actually doesn't that important for printing, but I'm annoyed with the way it looks.

The way fonts are rendered is simply different. The reasons why it is different are not known with certainty. There are some guesses, but they are fairly complicated and technical.
And no, there is no way around it, except to change screen. Some users perceive no problems and other users perceive problems. Partly the difference may be in our brains, how we perceive small pixels, but it is also in the screen you are using.

Similar Messages

Team Blog: Why does my page look different in BrowserLab?

Duane O'Brien, engineer on the BrowserLab team has a new blog post on the BrowserLab Team blog that you might find interesting. It covers when/why you might see rendering differences between the BrowserLab browsers and your local browsers. Good info.
http://blogs.adobe.com/browserlab/2011/07/11/why-does-my-page-look-different-in-browserlab /
Bruce
Bruce Bowman
BrowserLab product manager
BrowserLab Team Blog: http://blogs.adobe.com/browserlab
Twitter: @brucebowman, @adobebrowserlab

As Wyodor indicated IE is not the most advance, up-to-date browser out there.
See Roddy’s tips for making iWeb pages more compatible with IE.
OT

Why do web pages look slightly blurred on Mac?

I have a Mac Mini and a PC with XP on the same monitor, (using a kvm). Almost every web page I view looks better on the pc then the mac. On the mac, the fonts appear thinker and slightly blurred. the same web page on the pc is much sharper and clearer. Both use Firefox and res is the same on both 1280 x 1024. Even Apple's own site looks better on the pc! I've checked, and the same font's are installed on both. I've connected the Mac directly to the monitor, just in case it was the kvm, but no difference. I've also checked on other Mac's (albeit with larger screens), web pages look clearer on them.
Why does a mac, supposedly renowned for its graphics, not display as well as a PC? Monitor is Belinea 19" flatscreen.
MIni Mac OS X (10.4.8)
MIni Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Try different settings of Smoothing in the "Appearance" Systems Preference.

Why is my Page looking like this?

I have essentially the same page uploaded and I have no idea why one is looking like it does and the other is fine. The one that is the DSMS Home is the one I need to look correct. The other one is a test of that page before I made it the homepage of my school!!
http://cmweb.pvschools.net/dsmsweb/Site/DSMS_Home.html
http://cmweb.pvschools.net/dsmsweb/Site/about_me.html
Help!!!!

On my machine it looks horrible (viewing in Firefox). The text is all over the place, an image that used to be on the page and I took it off is still on there. I checked the site on a different computer using IE and it looks good. I'm not sure why only on my machine it looks bad.

Why does my 24fps look bad on my TV?

I just got the Panasonic AG-HMC150. I have shot some footage at both 1080p24 and 720p24. I transcode the files to Pro Res in FCP and they look pretty good, I realize the panning isn't as smooth as 60i. I drag one of the files into the FCP timeline and let it automatically "optimize my settings" for the sequence. I have verified that it is 23.98fps and field dominance is none. I have tried selecting "share" and going straight to AVCHD from FCP, and also taking the original MTS file, and Apple Pro Res and dropping into Toast and trying that way. The footage just looks choppy, jiddery and unsmooth. I have seen enough movies in my life to know that when they pan, or have cars drive by, that movies 24fps looks a million times better. My Sony HDTV even accepts and displays 24fps, and when I press info on the TV remote when watching one of these AVCHD discs it in fact says 1080 (or 720) 24p. It just looks bad. Even taking the HDMI output from the camera and hooking up to the TV and playing from the camera looks lousy.
What am I doing wrong? I know a ton of post work goes into Hollywood movies, but why does their 24fps look nice and smooth and mine looks horrible? Do I need to render with pulldown in FCP or something. I can't figure it out. Any advice, suggestions?

I transcode through FCP to apple pro res, the files shows up as 1920x1080 24fps. Field dominance is none. I edit the video and then export as quicktime movie using current settings. The Pro Res file says 23.98 when played in quicktime so I know that's good. I simply then drop the file into Toast (10.0.4) and burn blu-ray disc, selecting DVD as the media. I noticed too I need to change the field dominance under the encoding tab in Toast to progressive, as automatic doesn't work. It only burns the top half of the image. Regardless, when I make these discs and play them on PS3, my TV's info says 1080/24p. Maybe my eyes aren't use to seeing 24fps. Does it sound like I am doing anything wrong in my workflow/encoding process.
Again, good tip on the shutter speed Jerry.

Why does my page look funny in IE?

My pages look fine in Safari and Firefox, but when I open them in Internet Explorer, there are these large white rectangular shapes that are semi-transparent at the top of my page. Can any one help figure this out? My site isn't finished by any means but I don't want to continue if it's going to look terrible in IE which is what most people use with pc's
http://web.mac.com/lorenbarham/LHDBridal/EntryPage.html

As Wyodor indicated IE is not the most advance, up-to-date browser out there.
See Roddy’s tips for making iWeb pages more compatible with IE.
OT

Fonts in Windows look bad.

Hi
Compared to the look of fonts on a "real" PC, fonts in Windows on a Mac in boot camp look pretty bad. I have installed the drivers from the Mac CD after installing windows.
I use IE to check web sites that I do on the Mac, but the fonts look way worse than on a "real" PC.
Is there any way to get them looking the same as on a PC?
I have an Apple 20in Cinema Display, if that makes any difference.
thanks
peter

Not sure if this is the font smoothing issue which is active by default on windows or not. You can try the following and see if it helps.
RIGHT CLICK on any open portion of the Windows Desktop.
DISPLAY PROPERTIES Window should open up
Choose the APPEARANCE Tab
At the bottome right click on the EFFECTS button
Check to see that the setting for USE THE FOLLOWING METHOD TO SMOOTH EDGES OF SCREEN FONTS: is set to STANDARD.
Select OK on the remaining windows and see if that makes a difference.
Axel F.

Why dows some pages look srange in my safari 2.0.3

Pages like http://www.ayianapa.nu and
http://bartenderskolan.nu and some other sites look totally messed up in my Safari 2.0.3 =(
Like it's built with layers, and the the layers is all out of possition???

Mats, the two sites look fine on my computer but I don't know what you expect them to look like.

Why does my page look great in design view and to the left in live view?

I just created a new page using a fluid grid layout and in "design" view it looks great but in "live" view or on a browser preview the wording all goes to the left. What I am doing wrong? I also have another question which may relate to the first. I have four templates. Do I create a new named .css file for each new template or continue using the same layout.css file for all templates? Since I created a new .css file for every template maybe it is causing confusion. Thanks in advance.

If this is what you want, rework your HTML so all three images are in the same div and adjust your css to narrow the scroll down image and on Order jpg, vertically align top, 30px margin.
<div id="header">
<div id="pic1">
<img src="Thumbs/Scroll-Down.jpg" alt="More Pictures">
<img class="goldborder" src="NewImages/englilshivymain.jpg" alt="">
<a href="#OrderHere2">
<img alt="Order Here" src="Thumbs/OrderHere.jpg">
</a>
<br>
English Ivy (Detail)
</div>
<div id="pic4">

My web page look bad!

I create a Web page with iweb 8, when i look result with Safari and Firefox
all my flash 'banniere in french and another work very good. The size is good,
but in PC with Explorer all my flash look very small! My 'banniere up to the page is 800 X 200 with PC explorer look like 100 X 30 ?
I give my web site and tell me if correct or not? Thanks to take your time to help me.
Michel http://web.mac.com/escapademedia/vps/Accueil.html

http://web.mac.com/escapademedia/vps//Accueilfiles/widget0markup.html is the frame code that holds your 2.1MB .swf file.
Notice the height and width used in the code?
Flash is vector based and can scale to any size. You should edit the dimensions in that html file and use the 800 width and 100 height.
Open that html file in any plain text editor (TextEdit set to plain text) change the dimensions and save the file.

Why dose my page look so small

When ever i open up one particular site it now always shows up so small like font 4. How do i fix this its only with this one page and when i go to it on the other computer its normal so im guessing i did something and its saved in Cash although i empty this... HELP!

Hold down the '''Command''' key and press '''0''' (that's zero).
* [[Font size and zoom - increase the size of web pages]]

Why does my encode look bad?!?

OK! Here are my problems.
My source material is a Quicktime movie, Animation codec, rendered from After Effects. 1280x720 at 23.976fps. It looks great. The duration is about 3 minutes in length.
I have taken that footage and encoded it using Sorenson Squeeze 5 into .mp4 files (h.264) using the Sorenson codec, the Main Concepts codec and the Apple codec. All at VBR rate of 20Mbits.
Problem #1: Importing pre-encoded files into Encore results in Encore wanting to transcode them again. I never had this problem with SD DVDs, but it seems I cannot import h.264 files without Encore wanting to re-encode them.
Problem #2: Well, I guess I am stuck using Encore's built in encoder. This sucks because I like the additional controls I have encoding using Sorenson. Sooooo, I transcoded my uncompressed Apple Animation Quicktime file and then I built a folder.
The problem with #2 is that Encore's encode looks like crap. Text and images clearly appear aliased. Maybe it is converting the video to 50i instead of keeping it at 24p, but my project settings are clearly set for 24p. As a test, I used the VLC player to play the files out of the encoded folder as well as within the Encore environment.
So, first of all, why won't Encore work with my files I encoded/transcoded in Sorenson Squeeze? I know these files are encoded great, they look great... what's up?!?!
Second, anyone else experiencing odd issues with transcoding in Encore?
Thanks everyone.

John,
Ok. Here is our production process for the majority of our work:
1. Sources are either still pictures, vector art, or 24p (23.976). We are pretty effect heavy, so virtually everything gets finished in After Effects. We used to utilize higher-end software, but these days AE works fine for 90% of the workload.
2. We then render to Quicktime - Animation - 100 quality. This is a lossless codec and gives you some pretty huge files. We tried AVI files, but those ended up larger. We render to 23.976 progressive, no fields at all.
3. Into Sorenson Squeeze where we encode into On2 .fla files to display in Flash. Soon we will dual encode in On2 and h.264 for use in Flash. If the end-user is running the newer Flash 9 player, it will pull the h.264 files otherwise it will run the On2.
Now, everything we author is at 720/24p. For the web we pretty much just half the vertical and horizontal resolution (640x360). But for Blu-Ray, we have our source Quicktime animation at full 720/HD resolution.
4. We now open the Quicktime (Apple Animation Codec) into Preimere where we just drop it on the timeline and use the Adobe Media Encoder to generate a Blu-Ray H.264 file. We make sure to uncheck the deinterlace button as it is on by default (even known the source is progressive). This is where Encore fails. Encore seems to deinterlace period, so if your source is already progressive, Encore does a great job of making it look worse by deinterlacing non-interlaced footage.
(Note: Make sure when you encode in Premiere that your maximum bit rate on export is not greater than what you set in Encore or else Encore might transcode again)
5. Import your files into Encore. Your video file and audio file will be two different files. Oh, to encode in Dolby Digital out of Preimere you need a license. We have the Master Collection, but I am not sure if we got a license for that included? However, I am sure you can load up a number of other applications to generate your Dolby digital audio file if you need that. We use used PCM for these jobs, seemed fine.
Burn your Blu-Ray.
Things that still don't work:
h.264 content seems to only import from Premiere properly. I have used a number of encoders now to create Blu-Ray compliant h.264 and every time Encore wants to re-transcode them. Come on Adobe! This bug deserves a patch, seriously.
If you use a progressive clip as an animated menu, Encore deinterlaces it!! And I cannot find a way, at all, to get around that. Again, come on. What is up with the deinterlacing by default in Encore. Even when I need footage deinterlaced Encore is the last tool I would want doing the job!
Blu-ray authoring in Encore is slow. Moments before you will be in Premiere and then when you move to Encore it will feel as though your working through a molasses filter. In addition, Encore is flaky and sometimes your projects will get weirded out and you have to re-build them from scratch.
How about this, new rule, all Adobe employees are required to build 5 blu-ray discs this month. Two of them have to have animated backgrounds. Three should be built with progressive source material, one with interlaced material and one with mixed material. All of them should have professional video quality in the final disc.
Now, report to yourselves the massive amount of bugs you find and get them fixed. You will probably need to put a large portion of your workforce in therapy after being subjected to this process... just FYI.

Why do some pages look blurry?

I have noticed that some websites look blurry and also when I am trying to read an assignment in word it looks almost pixelated. What can I do to make it look clearer?

Do they still look blurry on the "best" setting for Retina?
The problem I see is, there are many applications around that were created a decade ago, and the developers have moved on. These are still valuable applications for many people. Are they just always going to look crappy on the Retina MacBook? That sounds pretty undesirable.
The difference with the iPhone is, the Retina was an upgrade, but didn't make existing applications look worse.

Why am I unable to use some fonts in Pages '09 since upgrading to Pages 5?

I upgraded to the new Pages and regretted it immediately because it doesn't have a lot of features I am used to and which I need. (The marketing blurb only mentioned what it could do, and omitted to mention how many functions had been removed, otherwise I wouldn't have upgraded.) As a result I decided I wouldn't use Pages 5 until it (hopefully) catches up with the functionality of the older version.
However, the upgrade appears to have done something to corrupt some of my fonts in Pages '09. This means that files I created in Pages '09 cannot now be printed because I get 'gobbledegook' instead of the font I chose (Academy Engraved for one).
I can set a new document in Pages 5 in Academy Engraved but if I then export it into Pages '09 it reverts to gobbledegook. I cannot simply replicate my old Pages '09 files in Pages 5 because the functionality I need isn't there. So I have a lot of files in Pages '09 that I can't print, and I am very frustrated.
I have validated the Academy Engraved font in Font Book and it was fine. Can anyone suggest anything else I can try please?
Many thanks.

Thank you for that, but I'm afraid I muddied the waters by mentioning that alert. I am aware of Gatekeeper, but the point was it was a Pages document not an app so I shouldn't have got that message at all. If anything, I should have got the "You need a newer version of Pages" message. However, I'll live with that one for the time being.
It's the font problem that I'm really concerned with. If I open a new document in Pages '09 I can no longer use Academy Engraved font, it just looks like gobbledegook. Neither can I read Academy Engraved font in any of my old Pages '09 documents. However, Academy Engraved font works fine in Pages 5. So by upgrading needlessly to Pages 5 I can no longer use Academy Engraved in Pages '09. That's my main problem.

Fonts look bad in OSX jagged text

Hello
I thought apple gave us font smoothing in OSX! My fonts look terrible in QuarkXpress6.0. Is this what I have to look forward to? I miss my ATM.
I did the "font smoothing thing" in appearence-no change.
Also will all my older fonts from when I used OS 7 +8, will these still work in OSX? and by Quark XPress?
Please enlighten me!
all fonts look bad; Goudy old style, bellvue etc. (postscript type 1)
imac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.4) 21" screen

if I zoom out in Quark to view document at say 125% the 45 pt type really looks bad
Hmm. I'm unable to duplicate your problem. I've pasted some random text into Quark, sized it to 45 pt and set the zoom to 125%. No matter if I go up or down, the fonts look very smooth with both Goudy Old Style and News Gothic (I have the Adobe version, not MT, which is from MonoType). Well, if I look real close, I can see a little bit of jaggies around curves. But nothing very noticable.
Is your 21" monitor a CRT or LCD? LCD always produce the best image when used at their native resolution. A CRT's best display varies depending on whether it has a shadow mask or aperture grill tube. If your monitor has an independent control for sharpening, it may be too high.
I have some fonts installed that I don't know where they came from ex: News Gothic MT (Microsoft I think) Will these view and print okay in any program?
As long as it's a standard Mac suitcase style TrueType font, or a complete and proper Type 1 PostScript font, it should just as well as any other.
I keep all my fonts in classic folder and manage w/font book (thats another story) It seems that my classic apps, Illustrator, see most of the fonts all the time eventhough I turned many off in fontbook. Also illustrator doesn't see ALL the fonts.
That's a handful. When it comes to Classic, the rules are a little different. Fonts you manually place into the OS 9 Fonts folder, or are put there by the OS when activating them from Font Book with OS 9 as the choice to be activated for, fonts are then available to both Classic and OS X.
If you deactivate them in Font Book, the fonts will become unavailable to OS X apps. However, any Classic apps will continue to see them until you shut down all OS 9 applications and Classic. In other words, once you open fonts for Classic, they can't be closed to Classic without shutting the entire environment down. Confused yet?
As far as Illustrator not seeing all the fonts, that relates to this part of your question:
Please explain the limitations of classic apps and fonts.
Classic can use any fonts that were in existence for the Mac before OS X. All of your older Mac TrueType and Type 1 PostScript fonts will work in OS X and Classic. Fonts that will work as is in OS X that you couldn't use before on a Mac are PC TrueType fonts. If you have copied any of the OS X .dfonts into the OS 9 Fonts folder, those will not work. A .dfont is a variation of a TrueType font, with the data in the data fork rather than the resource fork as they are with the older Mac TrueType fonts. Neither OS 9 or any Classic apps can read these fonts. Those are likely the ones not showing up in Illustrator.
It sounds like you do a lot of work with fonts. While Apple has improved Font Book quite a bit in Tiger, it's still very much a consumer font manager for those who handle fonts only occasionally. You'd be much better off using a font manager such as Suitcase X1 or Font Agent Pro.

Why font in Pages looks bad?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for