Glyphs AND Robofont

Andreas Jauss
Andreas Jauss Posts: 6
in Type Design Software
I am just trying Glyphs rightnow and have to use the older version, because my OS is not compatible with V2. I am just thinking if there are any benefits in combining Glyphs with Robofont? I mean it seems TrueType Hinting is missing in Glyphs, is this available in Robofont?

I also have an older version of FontLab, but FL is a complete nightmare for me regarding the interface and it's many small bugs.

Any recommendations???

Comments

  • Robin Mientjes
    Robin Mientjes Posts: 132
    Well… your OS is holding you back there. The new Glyphs has hinting built-in. Otherwise, tools are tools. It depends on what you prefer. You can trial Robofont for free, see how you like it. It’s a totally different way of making fonts than Glyphs.
  • Benedikt Bramböck
    Benedikt Bramböck Posts: 37
    The great thing today is that you actually have a choice between different editors. They all have there advantages and disadvantages.

    As Rob already mentioned, get the trial versions, watch some videos, read the docs. That should help you make a decision. Thanks to the guys behind the UFO format it is even possible to exchange files between the editors (with occasional drawbacks and the risk of losing some data though). So sometimes it might be worth considering to switch editors because there might be a feature/extension in the other one that helps you in your process.

    Concerning TT-Hinting: There is a extension for Robofont currently in development which will make it possible to hint a TrueType file almost like in Fontlab. Glyphs 2 does have a hinting tool, but is still lacks a trustworthy preview/waterfall of the hinted and rasterized shapes, something very vital when doing hinting.
  • Deleted Account
    Deleted Account Posts: 739
    edited September 2015
    If hinting is important to you, and TT hinting tools too, according to the new VTT, hinting may be in the process of revision.
  • Georg Seifert
    Georg Seifert Posts: 674
    Not only Glyphs has the problem with reliable preview. Did you ever compare the cleartype preview from FLS with what you get in the different web browsers? It depends on all kinds of thing but it was not even close the last time we checked.
  • Jason Campbell
    Jason Campbell Posts: 100
    Georg is correct about reliable preview. VTT gives you the best results, as it's bundled the Windows rasterizers in it. But then you have to have the UFO finished in Robofont, and export the TTF. If you later make changes to the UFO, you have to import those changes into the VTT hinted TTF. 

    The forthcoming hinting extension to Robofont is great, but it has to use Freetype for preview, so then you have to learn where the projected differences will be between FreeType and Windows. (depending on which Win you are hinting for...)
  • Paul van der Laan
    Paul van der Laan Posts: 242
    edited September 2015
    I assume we are talking about ClearType rendering here. The hinting preview in FontLab Studio on Windows is AFAICT exactly what I see in a web browser, so I assume Georg is referring to FontLab on Mac.
  • Georg Seifert
    Georg Seifert Posts: 674
    Paul van der Laan said:
    I assume we are talking about ClearType rendering here. The hinting preview in FontLab Studio on Windows is AFAICT exactly what I see in a web browser, so I assume Georg is referring to FontLab on Mac.
    No, I mean FontLab for Windows. There are difference in weight/color (especially in diagonals) and in spacing. We did screenshots and compared that with what we got from Firefox, Chrome and IE. All where slightly different (there are tons of settings how you can configure ClearType so I’m not surprised by that) but FLS was off quite a bit.

    What I’m saying is you need to test in the browsers. And that can be done on a Mac with virtual machines.
  • James Puckett
    James Puckett Posts: 1,992
    And that can be done on a Mac with virtual machines.

    At least in Latin. It’s a lot harder to test hundreds of unencoded glyphs.

  • John Hudson
    John Hudson Posts: 3,186
    There's a bunch of different rendering models under the general ClearType name in Windows, including a greyscale one in the Metro environment. I believe FLS uses the older GDI ClearType, so it's not surprising that this differs from what you'll see in DWrite and Metro apps.
  • Deleted Account
    Deleted Account Posts: 739
    "There are difference in weight/color (especially in diagonals) and in spacing. We did screenshots and compared that with what we got from...[a bunch of windows browsers]..."

    I'm pretty sure the hints required for windows ct are not effected by browser choice, and that one set of hints is all you got for all browsers. But, post comparison, how do you change your hinting to effect clear type's spacing and rendering of diagonals?
  • Paul van der Laan
    Paul van der Laan Posts: 242
    Rendering in Chrome has been “different” already for some time, and luckily has been improved. But I regard these more as differences between browsers that every web developer still has to cope with these days than a hinting problem.

    As David rightfully mentions: you can only have one set of hints for all browsers. And FontLab’s GDI ClearType preview is the bottom line for me when it comes to x-axis anti-aliasing and non-subpixel positioning.
  • Mike Duggan
    Mike Duggan Posts: 239
    curious to know, if the fact that VTT is Windows only, is a huge blocker for most folks who to use it?
  • Deleted Account
    Deleted Account Posts: 739
    For myself, I've used VTT on windows because that is where the actual rendering options are, and each time those options change, I have to check our 'whole library hinting strategy.'

    As Paul rightly points out, as long as one set of hints works, there is not much one can do about all the browsers. We could also consider as part of that issue, that we cannot do much about users platforms or sizes, except to change fonts or font formats. 

    And for me that goes without saying that we can't do much about their device resolution, much less their sub-pixel status in the world, at any given orientation. 

    That may be a bit off topic, apologies, but the original poster seems to have left his post. 
  • James Puckett
    James Puckett Posts: 1,992
    curious to know, if the fact that VTT is Windows only, is a huge blocker for most folks who to use it?

    It’s not why I don’t use VTT—I have a PC for testing fonts on Windows. For me the problem is just not wanting to add another tool and another file to my workflow.

  • Dave Crossland
    Dave Crossland Posts: 1,429
    It’s a lot harder to test hundreds of unencoded glyphs.

    Well, encode them, then, in the Private Use Area. See     https://github.com/googlefonts/fontbakery/issues/388
  • Andreas Jauss
    Andreas Jauss Posts: 6
    edited September 2015
    No I have not David!  :) I was just on a business trip for a few days! Still playing around with Glyphs and like it more and more. Will give Robofont a try as soon as possible.
  • Andreas Jauss
    Andreas Jauss Posts: 6
    So far I like both programs. Buying both would of course support the developers, but I think I will only choose one. Too bad I have to stick to my old OS X so I can not try the new versions!

Categories