jesperse@wk18 (Dennis C. Jespersen) (02/25/89)
I've got TeX and Metafont running on a NeXT machine; the installation was fairly easy, using the source files from ics.uci.edu (web sources and web-to-C-ware) and labrea.stanford.edu (other TeX- and Metafont-ware). I was interested in generating some 400 dpi fonts for the NeXT printer (I had some 300 dpi fonts available which we use on an Apple LaserWriter.) The Metafont parameters I came up with after some experimenting were: blacker=0.75; fillin=0; o_correction=0; (generating cmr10 at 300dpi with these parameters gave a font that matched the "given" 300 dpi font pixel-for-pixel except for one character). Then I tried cmr10 at 400dpi with these settings. A comparison of the font tables at 300 dpi and 400 dpi (from the "testfont.tex" file) shows the 400 dpi font is much improved over the 300 dpi font. The quality of the 400 dpi font is really very good; the printer is impressive. Generating a full set of Computer Modern and LaTeX fonts (93 fonts) takes about 2.5 hours of processing time on the NeXT. After packing to pk format, the collection of pk files at magsteps 0,1,2,3 occupies 623, 753, 918, 1125 Kbytes respectively. The dvi-to-PostScript driver I'm using is based on Beebe's dvialw; some hacking was necessary to get it to produce correct 400 dpi output, as it seems there are a few places in the code where the assumption is made that the only possible output resolutions are 200, 240, or 300 dpi. --Dennis Jespersen jesperse@wk18
UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (02/27/89)
In article <1515@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, jesperse@wk18 (Dennis C. Jespersen) says: > >I've got TeX and Metafont running on a NeXT machine; the installation >was fairly easy, using the source files from ics.uci.edu (web sources and >web-to-C-ware) and labrea.stanford.edu (other TeX- and Metafont-ware). ... >Generating a full set of Computer Modern and LaTeX fonts (93 fonts) >takes about 2.5 hours of processing time on the NeXT. After packing to >pk format, the collection of pk files at magsteps 0,1,2,3 occupies xxx3, 753, 918, 1125 Kbytes respectively. > >jesperse@wk18 Good man. It occurs to me that someone, or even NeXT, could save us all a lot of wasted time by collecting the currently available font library for TeX, doint the 400dpi and screen versions (90dpi? 100dpi?) and ...I know! put it on a od cartridge and release it to the public domain! lee
greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (03/01/89)
In article <73465UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes: >In article <1515@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, jesperse@wk18 (Dennis C. Jespersen) says: >> >>I've got TeX and Metafont running on a NeXT machine; the installation >>was fairly easy, using the source files from ics.uci.edu (web sources and >>web-to-C-ware) and labrea.stanford.edu (other TeX- and Metafont-ware). > ... > >>Generating a full set of Computer Modern and LaTeX fonts (93 fonts) >>takes about 2.5 hours of processing time on the NeXT. After packing to >>pk format, the collection of pk files at magsteps 0,1,2,3 occupies >xxx3, 753, 918, 1125 Kbytes respectively. >> >>jesperse@wk18 > > >Good man. It occurs to me that someone, or even NeXT, could save us all >a lot of wasted time by collecting the currently available font library >for TeX, doint the 400dpi and screen versions (90dpi? 100dpi?) and >...I know! put it on a od cartridge and release it to the public domain! You could always just scrap the Computer Modern fonts and use PostScript fonts? The NeXT machine uses the Display PostScript system, which means you might not need tons of 400dpi bitmaps when you can use outline fonts instead. Perhaps this has already occurred to you and you have ruled it out for other reasons, but I thought I should point it out, at least. The availability of higher- and higher-resolution devices is one of the main arguments against bitmap fonts. Look at all the time, space, and hassle they require so support a new printer (it looks like about 3 megabytes for a single font set). Not to mention the differences between write-white and write-black engines, etc., etc. Glenn Reid Adobe Systems
ram@umb.umb.edu (Robert Morris) (03/01/89)
In article <554@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: >You could always just scrap the Computer Modern fonts and use PostScript >fonts? [...] > >Perhaps this has already occurred to you and you have ruled it out for >other reasons, but I thought I should point it out, at least. > Local TeXperts tell me that PostScript fonts do not carry enough information to do TeX math mode setting, without which TeX is perhaps even a second choice to pc word processors for everything but book quality composition. I'd be very glad to have this shown wrong by someone who is setting TeX math on LaserWriters entirely in PostScript fonts, and hope they will tell me where to get the tfm files and relevant output driver. Bob Morris UMASS-Boston Dept. of Math and C.S. and Interleaf, Inc.
mark@avocado.ucsb.edu (Probert) (03/01/89)
In article <554@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: >You could always just scrap the Computer Modern fonts and use PostScript >fonts? The NeXT machine uses the Display PostScript system, which >means you might not need tons of 400dpi bitmaps when you can use >outline fonts instead. I would love to abandon bitmap fonts in favor of outline fonts but not at the expense of have a set of unified typefaces that include greek letters and math symbols. When will Adobe release TeX fonts in outline form? -- Mark Probert (probert@aviary.gm.hac.com) Delco Electronics
iau@ukc.ac.uk (I.A.Utting) (03/01/89)
This has been done to death in the TeX community, but for the sake of clarity: In article <554@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: >You could always just scrap the Computer Modern fonts and use PostScript >fonts? The NeXT machine uses the Display PostScript system, which >means you might not need tons of 400dpi bitmaps when you can use >outline fonts instead. This is not usually a complete solution, as the TeX character set is far more rich (especially in math symbols) than the default set of PostScript symbols. It may be that the Lucida family solves (will solve) this problem, but would leave a greater problem anyway: portability. Although I've successfully imported raw PS files (especially from ps-file-server@adobe.com), there are more printers in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy. >The availability of higher- and higher-resolution devices is one of the >main arguments against bitmap fonts. Look at all the time, space, and >hassle they require so support a new printer (it looks like about 3 >megabytes for a single font set). Not to mention the differences >between write-white and write-black engines, etc., etc. Yes it is a pain keeping separate font sets for different devices, but frankly, the pain involved in generating a TeX font set for a new and different device is as nothing compared to what you'd have to go through to provide PostScript fonts on a non-PostScript device (all that tedious hacking about with the font protection system :-). It's also true that Adobe's fonts do compensate for the difference between write-white and -black printers, but nowhere near as well as Metafont is capable of doing. To gain maximum advantage from a particular printer, the individual bits laid down to form a character must be selected with reference to not only which areas are being "written", but also the toner particle size, laser scan direction, etc. etc. Now if only I could work out the Metafont settings for our LPS40 *and* convince the users that CMR is better looking than Palatino, I'd be winning. Ian.
akk2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Atul Kacker) (03/02/89)
In article <554@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: > >You could always just scrap the Computer Modern fonts and use PostScript >fonts? The NeXT machine uses the Display PostScript system, which >means you might not need tons of 400dpi bitmaps when you can use >outline fonts instead. > >Perhaps this has already occurred to you and you have ruled it out for >other reasons, but I thought I should point it out, at least. > >The availability of higher- and higher-resolution devices is one of the >main arguments against bitmap fonts. Look at all the time, space, and >hassle they require so support a new printer (it looks like about 3 >megabytes for a single font set). Not to mention the differences >between write-white and write-black engines, etc., etc. > PostScript fonts are good, but how many of the ROM resident PostScript fonts in the popular PostScript printers (Apple LaserWriters, QMS, DEC LPS40's) contain a *full* set of Greek and mathematical symbols? I can't think of ONE. The reason people like to use TeX is because of its superior handling of complex mathematical expressions. There is no PostScript font that has all the characters in say, the cmmi family of fonts. As a result, the best one can do is to use PostScript fonts (like Times) for plain text and Computer Modern math fonts for equations and this combination does not lead to very eye pleasing results. Until a PostScript font (like Lucida) becomes a standard font on all PostScript printers, I'm afraid there is no alternative to using bitmap fonts. Personally, I prefer the appearance of the Computer Modern fonts to Times. -- Atul Kacker | Internet: akk2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu | UUCP: {ames,cmcl2,decvax,rutgers}!rochester!ur-cc!akk2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tli@sargas.usc.edu (Tony Li) (03/02/89)
In article <73465UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes:
Good man. It occurs to me that someone, or even NeXT, could save us all
a lot of wasted time by collecting the currently available font library
for TeX, doint the 400dpi and screen versions (90dpi? 100dpi?) and
...I know! put it on a od cartridge and release it to the public domain!
Or..... Just tar it up and put it in one of the archives.
Tony Li - USC University Computing Services - Dain Bramaged.
Uucp: oberon!tli
Bitnet: tli@kylara, tli@ramoth
Internet: tli@sargas.usc.eduUH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (03/02/89)
In article <554@adobe.UUCP>, greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) says: > >You could always just scrap the Computer Modern fonts and use PostScript >fonts? The NeXT machine uses the Display PostScript system, which >means you might not need tons of 400dpi bitmaps when you can use >outline fonts instead. > To tell the truth, I am a bit foggy on how PS fonts work. How, if at all, does TeX use them? Do people already do this with TeX (and by extension, Mathematica)?
dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Donald Hosek) (03/16/89)
In article <554@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: >You could always just scrap the Computer Modern fonts and use PostScript >fonts? The NeXT machine uses the Display PostScript system, which >means you might not need tons of 400dpi bitmaps when you can use >outline fonts instead. > >Perhaps this has already occurred to you and you have ruled it out for >other reasons, but I thought I should point it out, at least. > >The availability of higher- and higher-resolution devices is one of the >main arguments against bitmap fonts. Look at all the time, space, and >hassle they require so support a new printer (it looks like about 3 >megabytes for a single font set). Not to mention the differences >between write-white and write-black engines, etc., etc. > >Glenn Reid >Adobe Systems Problems with PostScript fonts include the fact that to produce usable outlines at low resolutions (meaning 300 dpi or less; possibly even at resolutions as high as 400 or 600 dpi), one needs proprietary PostScript code. People aren't going to scrap CM anytime soon because (1) it's actually a kind of nice font (2) it's more a matter of scrapping MF output in general (3) at the present time, Lucida is the only PS font that supports the full TeX character set (remember, the main reason many people use TeX is for the full supply of math symbols available). Given a NeXT machine of my own, I would be glad to take the time to not only get TeX to produce PS directly, but to also get MF to do the same. (the NeXT is currently the only system where this is feasible). THe catch is finding someone to give me the machine. Don Hosek (Please respond to U33297@UICVM.UIC.EDU)
stevec@fornax.UUCP (Steve Cumming) (03/21/89)
[ discussion of pros and cons of TeX vs. Adobe fonts
omitted ]
Metafont can be coerced into emitting Bezier outlines.
A discussion of how this may be accomplished, and a report
on work in progress, may be found in:
Leslie Carr, Of Metafont and PostScript
Proc. 8th An. Meeting, TeX Users Group.
August 1987.
Also in TeXniques No. 5.
--
Steve Cumming stevec@lccr.cs.sfu.ca {uunet|...}!ubc-cs!fornax!stevec
School of CS
SFU (604) 291-4399 beneath the moon / the wuggly-ump
Vancouver, CDN is hurtling on / kerblash kerplunk