The number of fonts in a typeface family is mushrooming.
Without even getting to web fonts, I'm about to publish a multi-script RIBBI typeface that has 64 fonts, 80 if family packages are included. Each style will be available in four script options (Latin, Greek, Cyrillic and Pan-European), Plain and Pro, and .otf and .ttf.
I’ve been publishing only .otf format since 2005, but the Bold Italic of this face looks so much better on an Apple monitor in .ttf that I have seriously considered only publishing the .ttf format … however, there is a lingering stigma, I suspect, amongst Mac users, against .ttf fonts.
Of course, another option would be to not even bother with individual fonts for the Greek and Cyrillic markets; I mean, it’s unlikely I will ever sell any Greek Bold Italics. However, making those individual fonts available sends the message that this is a serious multi-script face, has symmetry, and shows cultural respect.
What should I do?
1
Comments
Now (as per Stewf’s observation) I intend to price the PE Pro fonts high, but offer basic Latin fonts with no features at low price. That should generate more profit overall, and not piss off those who buy the big fonts for big bucks and end up paying for a lot of stuff (eg Greek small caps) they never use.
James: the TT to PS conversion is quite accurate; the only problem is that it adds a lot of extra points that aren’t in the original FontLab PostScript drawing. More fussy than messy. Is that an issue?
I will post comparative files soon.
This is an InDesign document, PostScript above, TrueType below. FWIW, the Bold styles have Forcebold applied. The viewing scale is 141%, just a random size the document opened at.
Matthew, Adobe applications work independently of Apple rendering—you can tell because Apple rendering pays no attention to a font’s hinting, whereas one is able to fine-tune type’s appearance in InDesign et al by adjusting alignment zones &c.
The "Additional Vertical Metrics", often overlooked, are maybe on of the most important factors to improve rendering on screen.
Can you post a screenshot of your "Key Dimensions" and "True Type specific metrics" info? Maybe I can help to improve your OTF rendering
I will change the suffix of the TT fonts to .otf and publish only those.
Thanks for that advice Ralf.
Except, as I pointed out, with Robofont, where 1 to 1 point conversion is one click away. With this, one has all the freedom long required for professinal work independent of the tt-ps, and hinting nonsenses.
Happy new long count.
Some glyphs converts flawlessly, some others get screwed.
I guess that Cubic Beziers curves processed throw Tunni's method, will produce much better results when converted to Quadratic Beziers via Robofont "preserve points" option.
Will run a few test and report back
Thanks for the corrections. Sorry about my limited English.
Fist test: http://cl.ly/0J3z3g3r0l03
A: Original Glyph, harmonized using RMX Supersmoth All
B: /A processed through the Tunnifier. Note that the BCP are in optimal position.
C: Robofont "preserve points" conversion of /A. Note the wonky curves at the top
As per your example, it looks like good glyphs convert flawlessly, bad glyphs become obvious.
JM: "What did Tunnifier do?"
I think it tries to undo what we don't usually do.
There is also a Robofont panel called "Curve Adjust" that does Tunnific work, but it's always good to have more.
I've invited Eduardo to join us, so he can provide a detailed explanation of his method. Exactly, but even someone with a high level of skill like you, can't always find the perfect/optimal placement of all the BCP's on all the Segments on all the Glyphs. Or maybe you can, but it will require a lot of time. Using Tunni's method/macro, you can get there much faster.
James, I know that you are not very affectionate towards automated solutions, but this one will not draw the glyphs or the curves for you. It will only optimize the BCP's placements without modifying your drawings.
If you want to see a few more sample, feel free to post a file containing a few of your glyphs and I will run the macro and post the file back, so you can compare the before and after results. I guess that your glyphs may be very very close to the optimal values, but still there is room for little improvement.
I like the idea of the Tunnifier, but the test does not support its description.