It’s been a while since I’ve posted anything, so lest you think I actually know what I’m doing, I’ll post a little sum’n sum’n I’ve been working on. This was built entirely in Bitfonter by FontLab.
Kewl. You know, I don’t usually comment on pixel fonts (not my bag) but … One thought: I think either you should also notch the shoulder of the ‘h’, or else remove the “underarm” pixel. That stem-arch joint just seems too solid. — K.
Grayscale bitmaps are in fact naturals for trapping. hhp
I think the only glyphs that don’t work are those with too many traps, like the ‘o’ and ‘e’. What happens if you only do two corners (on opposite ends)? It’s really nice, Jared. ‘g’ seems a bit wide. Maybe reign in the bottom half one pixel from the left.
Yeah, it’s very good, imo, nice work. Like best, the lc y and g, but all of them grab your attention. It seems to me that pixel display (bigger than 8 or 9 px) is a niche that is not being fully served and it’d be nice to see more faces like this. bj
Also, I am familiar with Miguel’s amazing work, I’d just like to see some other people jump in, too. bj
Hi Jared, Nice font specimen. I think that the tails of f, g and y are too decorative. I like the optical internal greys, looks great. BTW, I want to buy a Bitfonter that can produce pixel fonts optimised for ﬂash, and maybe a new version who can generate super pixel fonts, vector with greys. I am a windows user, but if bitfonter can oﬀer a new version for those who design pixelfonts…it would be great! I never knew if Bitfonter was a sucess of sales for Pyrus anyway.. MH.
Miguel said: I think that the tails of f, g and y are too decorative. I like those tails Jared, but they do look a bit out of context with the rest of the face. Perhaps you could derive two versions of the characters: one that is a straighter gothic sans; and one that is more decorative — sort of a sans w/swash lowercase. Or, whatever. Regardless, it looks swell.
Has it been 72 hours? I really can’t hold it in any more… ;-) I personally like large pixelfonts in general, not least because there are so few of them! This is a strange one (in a good way), and the main question about it seems to be: what’s it for? If it’s for good performance in video, then the trapping is going to look strange versus “display” usage, but OK functionally. So if you’re shooting for the former, you’ll have to put in more traps (like in the “I” — yes, I can see the trickiness there), but if it’s for the latter you’d probably need to balance them aesthetically (generally by reducing the trapping in some glyphs). As to the somewhat unorthodox glyphs (like the “g” and “y”), I honestly can’t ﬁgure out if they should stay or go… One thing about the “g” though: it’s too wide, and leaning rightward — try to make the join to the tail thinner and within the left bound of the head. hhp
Thanks everyone for your feedback! I’ve been reﬁning as you’ve been posting and will post another sample later this week when I get a window of time. jb
The starstruck g and y are ﬁne to my eye, maybe because they look great from 5 feet away. A ﬁtter quote might go, “Pixeltrap attains its shape at a distance of 5’, or 120 dpi, whichever comes ﬁrst.” I am not teasing. Photonic analog interference is wild and real between the viewer and the display. Only those with digital eyes will see strange lighttraps. <self-serving> maybe some of them want to be gray. </sans>