FL's Auto Standard stems vs AFDKO's StemHist

Ramiro Espinoza
Ramiro Espinoza Posts: 839
edited March 2015 in Type Design Technique & Theory
Can anyone tell me how FL's auto standard stems function compares to AFDKO's StemHist? Is FL's method not good enough? Should I always use AFDKO's StemHist? Does the difference between both really matter?
Tagged:

Comments

  • Georg Seifert
    Georg Seifert Posts: 680
    I always do my steams manually. The scripts tend to add to many stems. And to boil it down to the best result can’t be done by a script. 
    Steams are used to harmonize the appearance of the steams in small sizes. If you add a lot values, you end up with the same result as without hinting/stem.
  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 3,041
    If you really care about the font, I am with Georg: do the stems manually. AFDKO's StemHist is a useful tool in doing it manually.
  • Deleted Account
    Deleted Account Posts: 739
    edited April 2015
    Anyone know which one creates better TT hints on conversion, or doesn't it matter?
  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 3,041
    ? Not sure I understand. FontLab generates a specific list of values. AFDKO tells you how many stems have what values, and you can then decide what to do (tweak some stems, use certain values, whatever). AFDKO doesn't generate a specific list of values to use; it's an informational tool you use to intelligently decide yourself.
  • Ramiro Espinoza
    Ramiro Espinoza Posts: 839
    Thanks for the info

Categories