futuristic sans-serif font

This is my name tag for a science fiction convention. Because I didn't pre-pay, I had to hand write my name. I'd like to figure out the font and be able to print a new tag with my name like everyone else's. If you have seen this one, please let me know :)


Here's an inline image and link to make it easier:

Here's an inline image and link to make it easier:

CastCraft Software/OPTIIzara.otf

Thank you!

See here.

Mike, thank you for bringing up that thread.

The original of this design now belongs to Agfa (which means it doesn't belong to CastCraft). It's hopeful that Paratype -being an honorable operation- actually acquired the formal rights to make Mania*. But frankly even if they didn't, personally I'd rather see people support an honorable foundry than merely save $25.

* http://www.paratype.com/pstore/default.asp?search=Mania&fcode=DA_MNA


I tried to post a reasoned post about the sorry ethics of Paratype regarding Cyrillic "versions" of several Western fonts. My post was flagged as spam and not allowed.

The rest post-edited by myself for civility:

Good job, Hrant. You've succeeded in getting rid of me (something you claimed to never have done before).

Goodbye ...

Firstly, Castcraft is now defunct - and, before they made OptiIzara and OptiZara digitally, they were part of the cycle of photo type makers (including Compugraphic) ripping each other off with clones.

Paratype sells all sorts of Western fonts they have no legitimate rights to. They say, "Created by (some Russian font maker)" and then (to their credit) say, "similar to (font x by designer z). I'm sure it's wonderful to their Russian market that the font is available digitally with Cyrillic glyphs- but the original font was Western and, in some cases, still ethically (forget about legally ...) wrong to clone. An Othmar Motter font, Motter Tektura comes to mind. There are plenty of other examples, but, unfortunately, I haven't the time to lay them out now.

Paratype has no rights to their "version" of this. Nevertheless, you urge folks to give them $25 (It's commercial. It must be good!) rather than risk an offense against another defunct foundry (Compugraphic > Agfa).


Mike, I really have no idea what I just said that ticked you off. I was actually trying to be nice.

We can certainly talk about Paratype - I'm sure there are many factors I have no clue about. Just FYI though, many years ago I suffered a bit of embarrassment (on Typo-L) when I expressed that some of their fonts are illegitimately derived from ITC designs, only to learn that they were in fact authorized derivations.

BTW, many of us have been suffering spam "false positives".


First off: anything I ever write is simply my opinion. Just because I've been on Typophile a long time doesn't mean I have any authority over you. The only thing I'm an authority on is being myself.

Mike, I'm glad your post ended up going through.

Are you sure Motter Tektura is illegitimate? Or is it simply a logical suspicion (maybe like the ones I had back on Typo-L)? And are of you a mind that if somebody does something wrong any other deeds that are actually good don't count? Lastly, Agfa might no longer market fonts (and only at this moment...) but that doesn't mean they no longer own them; they could still make money from selling those rights. Don't get me wrong, I don't think either Compugraphic or Agfa have always behaved like saints (for one thing the latter manufactured chemicals used by the Nazis). But what good has CastCraft done? And why is a shopper saving some money the most important factor?

I'm simply trying to navigate these gray waters, in the context of Typophile. And for the record, I'm no fan of Capitalism, and not offending corporations isn't high on my list of priorities. It's about us, not them.


Well, crap. It's humble pie time ...

After seeing a couple like-minded posters get hit with the spam tag, I stupidly figured that you, Hrant, had (indirectly) gotten us muzzled. Yes, I know you claim no desire for such censorship.

Considering the recent spam problems on the forums, a light bulb should have gone off in my head - but it didn't. Instead, I jumped to a bozo conclusion. I am truly sorry for the personal attack related to this and I'm going now to edit that post for civility.

Thank you for the apology. FWIW, when I mess up that like I don't go back and edit it. I think that makes me more human (which is something I for one need to do :-).

And indeed, in ~15 years I have only requested that somebody be disciplined on one occasion (and it wasn't on Typophile). To be candid though I'm now reconsidering that philosophy (although it has nothing to do with you).


I edited it for your sake, not mine. I didn't want you to come off in that light in that post in the future. The Web being forever, and all.

I have three points to make in a short amount of time ...

1) You are going well beyond expressing your opinion. You are telling folks how to post and what guidelines they should use. As has been seen already, this is having a stunting effect on some already conscientious identifiers who don't want to offend you. That is the effect a bully has.

2) Paratype's Mania (designed in 1994 by Alexey Chekulaev ... right.) appears to be highly derivative of Phil Martin's Corporate rather than Zarana. The Font Company offered it as a font with a lowercase that comrade Chekulaev partially borrowed from.

In a 2004 interview with Mark Simonson, Phil Martin admits without apology to using and modifying the fonts of other photo-lettering entities. He had some nice original creations, but most of his fonts were derivative in a way you would surely disapprove of today. Was Corporate derived from Zarana? Possibly, but who knows.

Different eras and standards. Which plays a big part in ...

3) I think our main difference is in the the fact that we both claim to hold font designers in the highest esteem - and yet we disagree mightily about what that entails. I will try to elaborate when I can next post.

Edited out due to duplication.

The above message got snagged by the spam filter. I didn't know it went out at all - and with x4 variations. ??

I think we do agree on some key issues, and yes, the main thing we seem to disagree on is how much effort we should make in keeping/making Typophile friendly to the makers of type. The fact that I'm one of the extremely few type designers who now sets foot in the ID section (while in the past type experts like Stephen Coles and Yves Peters were regular IDers) I feel speaks volumes about how the ID section has been treating us.