Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: Font Formats

Expand Messages
  • alex brooks
    ... wow- sorry to spread misinformation, and thanks for the correction. I don t know where I got this idea, but I ve thought that TT was antiquated for some
    Message 1 of 6 , May 6, 2005
      > The point is that both TrueType and PostScript fonts are infinitely
      > scalable and both will always be smooth. Historically designers have
      > preferred PostScript fonts over TrueType fonts, but a quality
      > TrueType font is just as good as a quality PostScript font.


      wow- sorry to spread misinformation, and thanks for the correction. I
      don't know where I got this idea, but I've thought that TT was
      antiquated for some time now. This brings me to three questions for
      everyone:

      1: How did TT get the reputation of being inferior to PS

      &

      2: What are the differences between TT and PS then, besides 2nd and 3rd
      order curves. Support? Availability of quality fonts?

      &

      3: If TT is indeed as good as PS, why isn't it used as extensively as
      PS?

      thanks,
      alex

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Harold Kyle
      ... Two reasons that I ve heard: 1) Initially service bureaus had erratic output because the application support for TT was not as dependable as PS. RIPs were
      Message 2 of 6 , May 6, 2005
        On 5/6/05 11:24 AM, "alex brooks" <alexbrooks@...> wrote:
        > 1: How did TT get the reputation of being inferior to PS

        Two reasons that I've heard:
        1) Initially service bureaus had erratic output because the application
        support for TT was not as dependable as PS. RIPs were much less
        sophisticated then and it was hard to proof films before actually processing
        them. PS typefaces reduced costly mistakes.
        2) TT are cross-platform typefaces, and initially designers would attempt to
        bridge platforms by converting a PS typeface to TT. This resulted in a
        questionable heritage for TT typefaces...service bureaus weren't always sure
        they were generated correctly or that they were entirely dependable.

        Nowadays most applications are well suited for output of TT faces and PDF
        formats have reduced the need to migrate typefaces across platforms.

        > 2: What are the differences between TT and PS then, besides 2nd and 3rd
        > order curves. Support? Availability of quality fonts?
        It's all in the math:
        http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/bezier.html
        Aesthetics don't really play into this difference, I don't believe. For a
        more complete expanation, this site has a lot of info:
        http://www.prepressure.com/fonts/truetype01.htm

        Harold


        Boxcar Press
        Fine Printing / Digital Letterpress Supplies
        Delavan Center / 501 W. Fayette St. / Studio 222 / Syracuse, NY 13204
        315-473-0930 phone / 315-473-0967 fax / www.boxcarpress.com
      • Gerald Lange
        Harold I m not sure this is entirely accurate. PostScript was licensed as an important feature of output devices such as imagesetters. TT had to be converted.
        Message 3 of 6 , May 6, 2005
          Harold

          I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. PostScript was licensed as an
          important feature of output devices such as imagesetters. TT had to be
          converted. There are hinting considerations that have made TT
          inferior, at least in the earlier years. Better TT fonts used Delta
          hinting but it was quite a guarded technology. Even Fontographer was
          never able to get the licensing. But TT isn't cross-platform. Or least
          it certainly wasn't... Even the latest Mac and Microsoft systems have
          incompatibility issues regarding TT fonts designed for one platform or
          the other, and Apple makes no bones about it. . . they're not
          interested. And, they're not all that thrilled about extending a hand
          to Adobe's/Microsoft's OT either.

          Re: PDFs. Older versions of Acrobat would not function properly with
          TT fonts so the PDF assumption is not exactly correct. To my
          knowledge, Adobe only ever made one typeface in the TT format. It's
          not exactly like they were fond, or supportive, of a competing format.

          A primary reason Adobe took the unprecedented risk of unlicensed its
          proprietary PS1 format was to wipe out Bitstream's proprietary format
          (at that time its major competition). Adobe wasn't concerned about
          font sales, they wanted to ensure PostScript as the dominant page
          description language (used in output devices). A brilliant move but
          one that has been problematic, in terms of the continuance of
          unlicensed font formats and rights of usage, ever since.


          Gerald

          --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Harold Kyle <harold@b...> wrote:
          > On 5/6/05 11:24 AM, "alex brooks" <alexbrooks@U...> wrote:
          > > 1: How did TT get the reputation of being inferior to PS
          >
          > Two reasons that I've heard:
          > 1) Initially service bureaus had erratic output because the application
          > support for TT was not as dependable as PS. RIPs were much less
          > sophisticated then and it was hard to proof films before actually
          processing
          > them. PS typefaces reduced costly mistakes.
          > 2) TT are cross-platform typefaces, and initially designers would
          attempt to
          > bridge platforms by converting a PS typeface to TT. This resulted in a
          > questionable heritage for TT typefaces...service bureaus weren't
          always sure
          > they were generated correctly or that they were entirely dependable.
          >
          > Nowadays most applications are well suited for output of TT faces
          and PDF
          > formats have reduced the need to migrate typefaces across platforms.
          >
          > > 2: What are the differences between TT and PS then, besides 2nd
          and 3rd
          > > order curves. Support? Availability of quality fonts?
          > It's all in the math:
          > http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/bezier.html
          > Aesthetics don't really play into this difference, I don't believe.
          For a
          > more complete expanation, this site has a lot of info:
          > http://www.prepressure.com/fonts/truetype01.htm
          >
          > Harold
          >
          >
          > Boxcar Press
          > Fine Printing / Digital Letterpress Supplies
          > Delavan Center / 501 W. Fayette St. / Studio 222 / Syracuse, NY 13204
          > 315-473-0930 phone / 315-473-0967 fax / www.boxcarpress.com
        • Gerald Lange
          FYI on TT in the PS environment: A tech at Apple has informed me that when a TT font is sent to a PostScript printer (or imagesetter) it normally, dependent
          Message 4 of 6 , May 8, 2005
            FYI on TT in the PS environment:

            A tech at Apple has informed me that when a TT font is sent to a
            PostScript printer (or imagesetter) it normally, dependent upon the
            printer routines, has to be "converted" to a form of PostScript. In
            most cases this would be a font format called PostScript Type 42 (a
            co-development of Apple and Adobe), which is essentially a functional
            PostScript "wrapper," similar in kind to the OpenType "wrapper" both
            PS1 and TT are given in the OT environment. Other than that, it's not
            a case of one being inferior to the other or vice versa, just a matter
            of functionality in any given environment.

            Gerald
            http://Bielerpress.blogspot.com
          • Gerald Lange
            Published last Thursday in Voice: AIGA Journal of Design was a very comprehensive history of digital type design, The Digital Past: When Typefaces Were
            Message 5 of 6 , May 23, 2005
              Published last Thursday in Voice: AIGA Journal of Design was a very
              comprehensive history of digital type design, "The Digital Past: When
              Typefaces Were Experimental" by Paul Shaw. It reveals the intricacies
              of how the evolving technology has influenced typeface designs.

              http://voice.aiga.org/content.cfm?ContentAlias=_getfullarticle&aid=%23%2C%3EO%24%0A

              Gerald
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.