richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (08/10/88)
In article <4145@adobe.COM> greid@ondine.UUCP (Glenn Reid) writes: > > >FROM THE INTERPRETER'S POINT OF VIEW >------------------------------------ >A "ROM-resident" font is an already-built PostScript language >dictionary data structure with a pointer to make it available by name >(like /Times-Roman). All other fonts (including those stored on the >printer's disk) can be considered "downloadable". > >A downloadable font is just a program written in the PostScript >language. Typically what these programs do is to construct a >dictionary data structure and fill it up with little procedures to draw >characters, then call the "definefont" operator to register it under a >particular font name. All of this is done in accordance with the >guidelines set forth in the "red book". There are, in fact, several >third-party font vendors who have downloadable font products that can >be loaded into all Adobe PostScript printers (Altsys' Macintosh-based >Fontographer product, for instance). > >The "Adobe" downloadable fonts are, in fact, just PostScript programs. >They are encrypted, however, as a mechanism for protecting the font >outlines themselves which we have licensed from various typeface >companies. That is what the "eexec" operator does (encrypted exec). >The idea is to keep the programs themselves from being visible. After >all, the typeface itself is not protected under copyright law, only the >name. The font vendors have a vested interest in keeping the outline >data in a protected form. But is there not 68000 code in there as well ? Sombody sent me a note saying that Adobe fonts would not work in DEC's laser printer becasue it used a uVAX not a 68000 cpu, in spite of the fact it has real Adobe PostScript. Plus all that secret Adobe stuff. So it's not really fair to say you're just encrypting the outlines, is it ? >Linotype Corporation has >actually licensed our font-making technology and is producing their own >additional "Adobe" fonts (using the same encryption scheme) as part of >the total available (and compatible) library of fonts. Is Linotype the only company that has licensed the Adobe font-making technology ? >Also, Digital >Equipment Corporation, NeXT, and Scitex have also licensed Adobe >interpreters for Display PostScript, gaining instant compatibility with >the entire library of PostScript fonts. Do I take this to mean that can all interpret Adobe fonts correctly ? I recently purchased some PostScript fonts from ``S. Anthony Studios''. There are three in the set: a broadway clone, an Aldous or Huxley clone and a verrrry tall and thin Times-Roman'ish font. How do they look ? Awful. Below 50 points they look ``rough'' like the rasterizes got confused about where to put pixels. Plus they have such abberations such as the `O' has a gap at the bottom at 24 pts. but not at 18 points. My question then, is, how satisfied have people been with non-adobe PostScript fonts ? These ones I bought look like hell below 18 pts, whereas Adobe fonts still look quite good at 6 pts. Glenn, can you reccomend a good book about designing fonts for PostScript ? If not, could you write one please ? :-) -- Who are these ones that would lead us now ? richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard
greid@ondine.COM (Glenn Reid) (08/11/88)
Here are a few more followups on questions to my original posting on PostScript fonts. > In article <4145@adobe.COM> greid@ondine.UUCP (Glenn Reid) writes: > >The "Adobe" downloadable fonts are, in fact, just PostScript programs. > >They are encrypted, however, as a mechanism for protecting the font > >outlines themselves which we have licensed from various typeface > >companies. That is what the "eexec" operator does (encrypted exec). > >The idea is to keep the programs themselves from being visible. After > >all, the typeface itself is not protected under copyright law, only the > >name. The font vendors have a vested interest in keeping the outline > >data in a protected form. > In article <5426@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > But is there not 68000 code in there as well ? Sombody sent me a note > saying that Adobe fonts would not work in DEC's laser printer becasue > it used a uVAX not a 68000 cpu, in spite of the fact it has > real Adobe PostScript. No, there is no 68000 code or any other machine code. Adobe fonts work fine in DEC's laser printers (at least the PostScript ones) and with all other Adobe PostScript interpreters. That's the whole point of them. Buy some fonts. You'll see :-) > So it's not really fair to say you're just encrypting the outlines, is it ? Yes. > >Also, Digital > >Equipment Corporation, NeXT, and Scitex have also licensed Adobe > >interpreters for Display PostScript, gaining instant compatibility with > >the entire library of PostScript fonts. > > Do I take this to mean that can all interpret Adobe fonts correctly ? Yes. > My question then, is, how satisfied have people been with non-adobe > PostScript fonts ? These ones I bought look like hell below 18 pts, > whereas Adobe fonts still look quite good at 6 pts. I don't really know how satisfied people have been with other fonts. We work hard on our fonts. It is certainly possible to produce fonts which don't look good at small point sizes. I would think that 18 point is a bit large to start seeing problems, though. I hope this clears things up a bit. -- Glenn Reid Adobe Systems