marmoset@ub.cc.umich.edu (Dave Walker) (08/03/90)
In article <862@grenada.UUCP> roger@grenada.UUCP (Roger Corman) writes: > Which type of hinting is better for you and me? Whichever allows us > the most fonts of the best quality for the lowest price (obviously). I > personally expect it will be *years* (if ever) before the number of quality > fonts now available in Adobe format are available in TrueType format. Interestingly enough, according to one of the desktop publishing rags, (Publish, I think) Bitstream is going to release it's entire typeface library in TrueType format at *no more than 25%* of the price of their equivalent Type 1 typefaces. Has anyone else heard about this? +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Walker, Marmoset Design Ltd. | | marmoset@ub.cc.umich.edu * Ignore Selina * | | marmoset@mondo.engin.umich.edu | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) (08/03/90)
In article <1990Aug3.014801.24448@caen.engin.umich.edu> marmoset@ub.cc.umich.edu (Dave Walker) writes:
_Interestingly enough, according to one of the desktop publishing rags,
_(Publish, I think) Bitstream is going to release it's entire typeface
_library in TrueType format at *no more than 25%* of the price of
_their equivalent Type 1 typefaces. Has anyone else heard about this?
Why?
--
Glenn Reid PostScript/NeXT consultant
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us Independent Software Developer
..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn 415-851-1785chi@tybalt.caltech.edu (Curt Hagenlocher) (08/04/90)
In article <1990Aug3.014801.24448@caen.engin.umich.edu> marmoset@ub.cc.umich.edu (Dave Walker) writes: > >Interestingly enough, according to one of the desktop publishing rags, >(Publish, I think) Bitstream is going to release it's entire typeface >library in TrueType format at *no more than 25%* of the price of >their equivalent Type 1 typefaces. Has anyone else heard about this? I believe that I read the same article, and the impression that I got was that Bitstream would sell its TrueType faces to those already owning the same Type 1 face at no more than 25% of the cost of the original face. I can't imagine why they would sell the TrueType face for less to a first-time buyer. --- Curt Hagenlocher chi@tybalt.caltech.edu "No quote for today."
marmoset@mondo.engin.umich.edu (Dave Walker) (09/04/90)
In article <1990Aug4.031659.23902@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> chi@tybalt.caltech.edu (Curt Hagenlocher) writes: >In article <1990Aug3.014801.24448@caen.engin.umich.edu> marmoset@ub.cc.umich.edu (Dave Walker) writes: >> >>Interestingly enough, according to one of the desktop publishing rags, >>(Publish, I think) Bitstream is going to release it's entire typeface >>library in TrueType format at *no more than 25%* of the price of >>their equivalent Type 1 typefaces. Has anyone else heard about this? > > >I believe that I read the same article, and the impression >that I got was that Bitstream would sell its TrueType faces >to those already owning the same Type 1 face at no more than >25% of the cost of the original face. > >I can't imagine why they would sell the TrueType face for >less to a first-time buyer. > >--- >Curt Hagenlocher chi@tybalt.caltech.edu >"No quote for today." Bitstream has a strong interest in seeing TrueType established as a major font format. By strongly positioning themselves as the pre-eminent TrueType font supplier (as Adobe is positioned as the foremost Type 1 font vendor) by offering their fonts cheaply, they stand to benefit greatly if TruType takes off. +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Walker, Marmoset Design Ltd. | | marmoset@ub.cc.umich.edu "I don't read, I just guess" | | marmoset@mondo.engin.umich.edu -Happy Mondays, "Wrote For Luck" | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen) (09/08/90)
>Bitstream has a strong interest in seeing TrueType established as a >major font format. By strongly positioning themselves as the >pre-eminent TrueType font supplier (as Adobe is positioned as the >foremost Type 1 font vendor) by offering their fonts cheaply, they stand >to benefit greatly if TruType takes off. I think you've brought up an important point here. TrueType is important to Bitstream primarily for market reasons. Bitstream, being somewhat of a late entry into the Mac font market, has had their problems penetrating the design and typesetting end of the market (the people inclined to buy whole typeface libraries), for the simple reason that Adobe was their first, and that most people were using Adobe fonts (if you're a service bureau, you buy what your customers use). Many service bureaus have recommended against using Bitstream fonts, since they are a bit inconvenient to download to the font storage disk of an imagesetter (not supported by Adobe's font downloaders, and the Apple one is very buggy and not compatible with those from Adobe). Getting back to the issue of TrueType vs. Type 1 font pricing: there are currently many Type 1 compatible font production tools (those used by Adobe, Bitstream, The Font Company, etc., as well as Fontographer 3.1, FontStudio, and the forthcoming Kingsley/ATF Type Designer I). Many of these will be updated to deal with the TrueType format, when a TrueType-compatible operating system is released by someone :-). The key question will be "how good are the TrueType fonts compared to their Type 1 equivalents?" The main issue will be hinting, which is done in the PS interpreter (in the case of the Type 1 fonts) and is done in the font (in the case of TrueType). The TrueType hinting language is thorough but complex. One font vendor (who does not want to be identified) said that it might take twice as long to produce superhinted TrueType fonts than to produce their Type 1 equivalents, and, were that the case, he'd be inclined to charge twice as much for them. The Altsys folks claim that their automatic TrueType font hinting will be at least as good as Type 1. I guess we'll see... The conclusion from the above: it will probably take at least as much effort, if not more, to produce a TrueType font than to produce its Type 1 equivalent. Therefore, if the TrueType fonts cost less to the user, it will be for marketing reasons rather than technical reasons. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / Robert Hammen | Macintosh enthusiast & publishing guru, looking for a job / / hammen@ddsw1.mcs.com | 70701.2104@compuserve.com | GEnie: R.HAMMEN / /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
norman@d.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) (09/10/90)
From article <1990Sep08.111132.10740@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, by hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen): > [...] The key question will be "how > good are the TrueType fonts compared to their Type 1 equivalents?" The main > issue will be hinting, which is done in the PS interpreter (in the case of > the Type 1 fonts) and is done in the font (in the case of TrueType). The > TrueType hinting language is thorough but complex. One font vendor (who does > not want to be identified) said that it might take twice as long to produce > superhinted TrueType fonts than to produce their Type 1 equivalents, and, > were that the case, he'd be inclined to charge twice as much for them. The > Altsys folks claim that their automatic TrueType font hinting will be at > least as good as Type 1. I guess we'll see... It seems that most people are choosing to overlook what I consider to be TrueType's biggest advantages over Type 1: - optical bounds for automatic optical alignment of characters and for hanging punctuation, - support for variant glyphs such as swash characters, small capitals, and old-style numerals, - ductility (the ability to stretch only part of a character) for cursive letters or mathematical symbols (i.e. stretching the straight parts of the '{' character but leaving the curved parts alone), - anchor points for the application of applied marks, - an upper limit of 65000 glyphs per font, - a hinting mechanism that allows character shapes to vary at different sizes (Yea, no more titling capitals. BTW, for those who don't know, many type designers intensionally vary the shapes of characters as they grow in size. This prevents the bolding effect that titling caps of digital typefaces are intended to correct.) - specification of info that will allow the line layout manager to provide automatic ligaturing, etc. (actually, applications could use this info before the LLM becomes available, but I expect most people will wait.) - a lot of support for non-roman scripts like Arabic, Hindi, Japanese. I expect Type 1 will have to change a great deal to really do this well. The way I look at it, one TrueType typeface can contain the equivalent of Adobe Garamond, Adobe Garamond Expert, Adobe Garamond Alternate, and Adobe Garamond Titling Capitals. And when the LLM comes out, I get extra functionality that will probably be missing from Type 1 faces. Yes, a 'superhinted' TrueType font will take a lot of work--but I expect it to be well worth it. > The conclusion from the above: it will probably take at least as much > effort, if not more, to produce a TrueType font than to produce its Type 1 > equivalent. Therefore, if the TrueType fonts cost less to the user, it will > be for marketing reasons rather than technical reasons. Agreed. -- Norman Graham Oklahoma State University Internet: norman@a.cs.okstate.edu Computing and Information Sciences BangPath: 219 Mathematical Sciences Building {cbosgd,rutgers}!okstate!norman Stillwater, OK USA 74078-0599
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (09/10/90)
In article <1990Sep10.043539.26@d.cs.okstate.edu> norman@d.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes: >From article <1990Sep08.111132.10740@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, by hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen): >> [...] The key question will be "how >> good are the TrueType fonts compared to their Type 1 equivalents?" Yes indeed > - a hinting mechanism that allows character shapes to vary at different > sizes (Yea, no more titling capitals. BTW, for those who don't know, > many type designers intensionally vary the shapes of characters as > they grow in size. Yes indeed very much! > - specification of info that will allow the line layout manager to > provide automatic ligaturing, etc. (actually, applications could > use this info before the LLM becomes available, but I expect most > people will wait.) Yes indeed. > >The way I look at it, one TrueType typeface can contain the equivalent >of Adobe Garamond, Adobe Garamond Expert, Adobe Garamond Alternate, and >Adobe Garamond Titling Capitals. And when the LLM comes out, I get extra >functionality that will probably be missing from Type 1 faces. > >Yes, a 'superhinted' TrueType font will take a lot of work--but I expect >it to be well worth it. > We shall simply have to see how well the results come out. It won't be hard to beat Postscript, which is only fair on 1200 d.p.i. typesetters and downright ludicrous on 300 d.p.i. printers. Doug McDonald
harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) (09/12/90)
In article <1990Sep10.130617.11792@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: > We shall simply have to see how well the results come out. It won't > be hard to beat Postscript, which is only fair on 1200 d.p.i. > typesetters and downright ludicrous on 300 d.p.i. printers. Doug, What kind of equipment are you used to dealing with? I hate to seem like a philistine, but I've always thought Postscript looked very nice, 300 dpi or whatever. In other words, what's wrong with PS that it doesn't look very good, and what will make it better? -- Mark Harrison harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (214)518-5050 {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison standard disclaimers apply...