rcpt@rc6.urc.tue.nl (Piet Tutelaers) (09/19/90)
Can somebody provide me with the parameters needed to generate a true size 36 points version of the computer modern TeX font? I need it to demonstrate the difference between the 12 point font three times enlarged and a true size font on a overhead sheet. uucp: rcpt@urc.tue.nl | Piet Tutelaers Room RC 1.82 bitnet: rcpt@heithe5.BITNET | Eindhoven University of Technology phone: +31 (0)40 474541 | P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, NL
dhosek@frigga.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (09/20/90)
In article <45@rc6.urc.tue.nl>, rcpt@rc6.urc.tue.nl (Piet Tutelaers) writes... >Can somebody provide me with the parameters needed to generate a true size 36 points >version of the computer modern TeX font? I need it to demonstrate the difference between >the 12 point font three times enlarged and a true size font on a overhead sheet. Well, interpolating parameters (cf. John Sauter's MF code available from ymir.claremont.edu in [anonymous.tex.mf.cm.sauter]) gives a rather anemic result. Some people at WSU created a set of MF parameter files, I believe, independently of Sauter's work for "standard" sizes of CM (e.g., 14, 18, 24, 36pt) that may look better (I've never MF'd these, myself). These files are on ymir.claremont.edu in [anonymous.tex.mf.cm.variants]. I personally feel that magnified CM is the proper thing to use for display sizes of type (cmr17 has proportions that are beautiful for setting extensive passages of text, but be honest, when's the last time you've typeset a paper in 17pt?). The better comparison would be, say, the traditional cmr5 at 10pt vs. cmr10 or maybe cmr10 at 17.28 vs. cmr17 (although don't blame me if people claim the former looks better). -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info