it looks like good glyphs convert flawlessly, bad glyphs become obvious
Agree, if you are using Good/Bad from a technical perspective. (As both are the same aesthetically) It also can be expressed as: "Glyph where the BCPs are 'exactly' at ⅔ of the segments converts flawlessly, otherwise conversion will distort the curvature of the segments". If fact we are not even discussing at the "glyph" level, but at the "segment" level, so we can conclude that: "Segments where the BCPs are 'exactly' at ⅔ will converts flawlessly, otherwise the curvature will be distorted".
There is also a Robofont panel called "Curve Adjust" that does Tunnific work, but it's always good to have more.
Great! Where is the "Curve Adjust" panel in Robofont? wanted to try, but can't find it.
Pablo, when I compare the "A" and "B" glyphs of your test, I notice a change in curvature.
Ben, yes, there is a very slight change in the curvature. But if you want to convert your font to TTF using the 'preserve points' option, the resulting /D is much better than /C.
Robofont, font window, font info/Robofont/... The one can choose "preserve points" or "...curves".
There seems to be a choice here, either to preserve points, or to preserve curves. The choice seems to be: (1) preserve points, but small distortions might be introduced in the curves; (2) preserve curves, but additional points might be introduced.
What we would want, however, is to preserve both points and curves. But this might be technically impossible.
Now, when using the Tunnifier, the possibility that small distortions might be introduced in the curves, can be moved to an earlier phase. So, when all glyphs are already "tunnified", then, when converting from PS to TT curves, no additional distortion will be introduced when all points are preserved.
it looks like good glyphs convert flawlessly, bad glyphs become obvious
Calling glyphs (esthetically) "good" because they are "tunnified" with BCPs in optimal position, and (esthetically) "bad" when their BCPs are not in optimal position — seems like replacing your eyes (and mind) when assessing the esthetic quality of a glyph, by just a technical condition. Or, perhaps, this "good" and "bad" was only meant to describe whether or not the technical condition at hand has been met.
Nick: I suggest you try turning off "ForceBold" on the PS outlines and see if they render better in the Adobe apps.
For apps using Apple's Quartz rendering, I find that the outline format makes very close to zero difference in the rendering. (Aside from the unusably small sizes where Apple actually uses the hints in the font.)
Going back to the main discussion topic, I’d keep just 2 options: Standard (with all European and Pan-European accents) and Pro option. On the other hand I feel selling Cyrillic and Greek apart (and at a higher price) is a bit discriminating for these people, obliged to use their idiom + Latin. I feel it would be more fair to sell the Pro version only, but I understand the lower price of the standard one will certainly improve the overall sales.
The Greek and Cyrillic will be the same price as the Latin. Their encoding also has basic Western Latin characters, so they may be a better deal than the Latin, for those who would like Greek/Cyrillic but don’t need Latin Extended.
Comments
It also can be expressed as: "Glyph where the BCPs are 'exactly' at ⅔ of the segments converts flawlessly, otherwise conversion will distort the curvature of the segments".
If fact we are not even discussing at the "glyph" level, but at the "segment" level, so we can conclude that:
"Segments where the BCPs are 'exactly' at ⅔ will converts flawlessly, otherwise the curvature will be distorted". Great!
Where is the "Curve Adjust" panel in Robofont? wanted to try, but can't find it. Ben, yes, there is a very slight change in the curvature. But if you want to convert your font to TTF using the 'preserve points' option, the resulting /D is much better than /C.
What we would want, however, is to preserve both points and curves. But this might be technically impossible.
Now, when using the Tunnifier, the possibility that small distortions might be introduced in the curves, can be moved to an earlier phase. So, when all glyphs are already "tunnified", then, when converting from PS to TT curves, no additional distortion will be introduced when all points are preserved.
Calling glyphs (esthetically) "good" because they are "tunnified" with BCPs in optimal position, and (esthetically) "bad" when their BCPs are not in optimal position — seems like replacing your eyes (and mind) when assessing the esthetic quality of a glyph, by just a technical condition. Or, perhaps, this "good" and "bad" was only meant to describe whether or not the technical condition at hand has been met.
For apps using Apple's Quartz rendering, I find that the outline format makes very close to zero difference in the rendering. (Aside from the unusably small sizes where Apple actually uses the hints in the font.)
Going back to the main discussion topic, I’d keep just 2 options: Standard (with all European and Pan-European accents) and Pro option. On the other hand I feel selling Cyrillic and Greek apart (and at a higher price) is a bit discriminating for these people, obliged to use their idiom + Latin. I feel it would be more fair to sell the Pro version only, but I understand the lower price of the standard one will certainly improve the overall sales.
Their encoding also has basic Western Latin characters, so they may be a better deal than the Latin, for those who would like Greek/Cyrillic but don’t need Latin Extended.