1184RE: Typeface optimization
- Jan 28, 2003From: "David P. Wall"
> When typefaces are designed for computer reproduction,Not always, but it seems to me that generally the 12 point
> do the type designers always create their master
> patterns for a standard optimal size?
is chosen. Of course it doesn't much matter what you choose:
things won't really work with less than at least 3 masters.
That's because there are two cutoffs in "modes of reading",
resulting in three bands: display, reading, sub-reading.
From: Gerald Lange
> Unless you have a multiple masters font with the appropriate axesAnd there is a view that practically none of those really
work optimally: the smaller sizes especially don't go far
enough in terms of compensation for optical distortions.
I in fact have the view that small type has to have a
certain ugliness about it if it's ever seen large* and
this leads to the probable reason why the optical axes
don't go far enough: since it's possible to set large
type using the small end of the axis, resulting in the
insensitive user (~75% of them) exclaiming "Hey, that's
pretty ugly - what a waste of money on that font!", it
makes more business sense to strike a balance between
what it *needs* to be versus what most people expect.
* Look in particular at the work of Walter Tracy.
From: Peter Fraterdeus
> I've just opened Zapfino.dfontBut isn't that a "dumbed down" OT font?
Plus it's not just a matter of loading it up, it's a
matter of maintaining all its functionality when you
re-output it. For example, you can open up all those
wonderful MS core fonts in Fontographer, and it all
looks peachy, but when you generate a new font from
there you lose all the hinting, which is the entire
point of those fonts!
I share Gerald's uneasiness to some extent.
- << Previous post in topic