[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ttf2pk for TeX Live 4
>>Theoretically, no differences should appear in
>>shape (nevertheless, I dare to say that for very small sizes
>>resp. resolutions, TTFs yield better results because of the hinting
>Urban legend :-) Since TrueType has an inferior rasterizer it has to have
>complex hinting to make up for drop-outs and other errors. This means that
>good hinting of TrueType fonts takes about an order of magnitude more work
>than good hinting of Type 1 fonts. As a result most commercial Type 1 fonts
>are fairly well hinted, while most TrueType fonts are not. The exception
>the core Windows fonts (done for MS by Type Solutions and MonoType) and
>the core Apple fonts, and *some* of the fonts from MonoType, but not all.
Well... For some reason, I have shareware founts available in TrueType and
PS Type 1 format, and when I print (using the TT rasteriser built into
MacOS 7.6.1 and ATM 4.0.3), I reckon the TrueType version is better than
the PS Type 1 version in the few cases where I can tell the difference.
Now then... If a shareware TrueType fount manages this, what about
I think it's a bit more of an urban legend that ATM is such a good
rasteriser. I've seen no evidence of it myself, and I've seen no evidence
of TrueType founts being poor quality compared to PS Type 1 founts. Quite
the opposite, in fact.
btw Berthold - have you received my test prints yet?
>For an interesting comparison see:
You're right that it's interesting - interesting in that I've used both
TrueType and PS Type 1 versions of the CM founts and I've never seen either
of them look that bad. Could it be that Y&Y is trying to `do down'
TrueType so that people spend money on its PS Type 1 founts? Surely not...
Yes, the TrueType versions do end up a bit rougher on screen compared to
the CM/PS founts rendered by ATM. There is very little difference if
you're using screen bitmap founts and a version of the MacOS that doesn't
do anti aliasing of TrueType founts.
However... I've never seen TrueType founts looking as they do on this Web
page. On top of that, the comparison isn't a particularly good one: it's
comparing on screen renditions (which rasterisers and which founts
exactly?) and one is normally more interested in printed renditions. Some
mention was made of scaling as well - I suspect it's a set-up designed to
make the TrueType versions look much worse than they normally would.
>This seems very rare, except on the Mac perhaps where the 72 dpi screen makes
>for a tougher rasterizing job than Windows 96 dpi or 120 dpi. And there
>typically come with "screen font" bitmaps.
Well... screen bitmaps are ignored if you're using ATM, which makes a
pretty good job of on-screen rasterising with anti-aliasing. On top of
that, not many users of modern Macs run their monitors at 72dpi any more.