"Best" digital version of Futura?

ericgio
21.Mar.2006 9.31am
ericgio's picture

I’m working on a corporate branding system at a new company that uses Futura as their corporate face.

They use a version called FuturaEF that appears to be incomplete. Does anyone out there know which digital version of Futura is considered to be the “best”? By that I mean most complete and well-drawn.

thanks for the help

eric



Miss Tiffany
21.Mar.2006 12.14pm
Miss Tiffany's picture

I’ve heard that the URW version is the “best”, but I personally prefer using Adobe’s and Bitstreams together. The weights vary a little as do some of the details — traps and no traps — which I find important.


ericgio
21.Mar.2006 12.54pm
ericgio's picture

The URW package looks great. everything I want for a bundle price. Paul, I had seen the FuturaND version, but it’s awfully expensive since they make you buy each one separately (I think).

Tiffany, why do you prefer Adobe/Bitstream over URW?


Stephen Coles
21.Mar.2006 12.57pm
Stephen Coles's picture

Neufville claims most authenticity.

Futura ND was completely digitized anew from the original sources of the Bauersche Giesserei, now hold by FT Bauer in Barcelona.


privateortheris
21.Mar.2006 1.46pm
privateortheris's picture

Adobe for me - Open Type. Cross platform, so they can apply it after you’ve gone - good range - good cut - Chris Mitch


Miss Tiffany
21.Mar.2006 1.48pm
Miss Tiffany's picture

Because I already have licensed them. =^D


Stephen Coles
21.Mar.2006 5.36pm
Stephen Coles's picture

Careful, Adobe’s Futura has some problems Most of the other foundries’ versions do not have the egg-shaped rounds.


Mark Simonson
21.Mar.2006 7.04pm
Mark Simonson's picture

I was going to mention that. It was one of the earliest fonts Adobe released and it is not real good, especially the Heavy weight. I just took a look at a PDF of the current version on Adobe’s website. It’s not quite as bad as the samples that Erik Spiekermann shows, so it appears they have made some alterations since it was first released, but it’s still not great (in my opinion). The other weights aren’t as bad, but notice also that the italics are all just slanted romans, not optically adjusted. I’m partial to Bitstream’s cut, especially for text.


franzheidl
22.Mar.2006 1.16am
franzheidl's picture

Yes, Adobe’s Futura surely isn’t that good at all, for example if you set it without linespacing (as was called “Kompress” in the days of metal type over here in germany) ascenders and descenders will overlap. That surely woudln’t have happened with metal type, so that’s a technical fault to Adobe Futura, at least to my understanding.
On the best version, that’s a bit down to personal taste i think, as the different digitizings have different approaches or emphasize different aspects and qualities of Futura:
The URW version seems to stress the somewhat elegant quality Futura has and appears pretty thin to me, whereas the Berthold BQ version seems much more stable and robust to me (and if you look at old prints of Futura, it surely had that quality as well and didn’t come across as the super-elegant thing we’re used to from cosmetics packagings and the like today!)
So my personal vote would be for the BQ-version if i had to buy it – the strange thing is Futura is one of the faces i love, admire and respect the most – but never use it! :-)

p.s. besoides the best digizings issue, it’s such a shame that the different optical sizes that were made for Futura metal didn’t survive into the digital age…


twardoch
22.Mar.2006 7.51am
twardoch's picture

The Futura from EF and URW are identical in the basic design since they come from the same source. The URW version is in OpenType, has small caps, CE characters as well as Greek and Cyrillic (although these are very poor).

A.


Glenda S. McKinney
14.Aug.2007 7.05am
Glenda S. McKinney's picture

Our web site designer is recommending Futura MdCn BT for a couple of uses, notably titles. I want to revise templates in our publications to match the web site, but our analysts’ needs are rather different from our web site designers....

Futura MdCn BT has about the ugliest micron char I’ve ever seen, and lacks all other Greek chars. The URW char set is much more complete. However, the Greek section is inexplicably missing a only few chars (Omega, Delta and mu), which are naturally the ones we use in formulas the most frequently. The Greek version of the font has all those chars, but loses many mathematical operators. *sigh*

EF’s Md Condensed has the Greek chars we need, the mathematical operators, and comes in ital, so that looks like the winner for now. I wish we could have small caps, too, but sometimes we have to be practical!


Thomas Phinney
15.Aug.2007 9.59pm
Thomas Phinney's picture

Don’t believe everything you read. The outline issues in Herr Spiekermann’s examples of Adobe’s version of Futura were fixed something like 15 years ago (maybe more, I’d have to do some digging).

Too bad he didn’t feel it necessary to add that clarification.

Cheers,

T


franzheidl
16.Aug.2007 4.19am
franzheidl's picture

Have you fixed the dimension issues as well? As i remember, ascenders and descenders of Adobe’s version of Futura used to clash/overlap when set without additional linespacing (which – obviously – didn’t happen in lead/metal original Futura). At least to me that felt like an issue over the years…


Robert Trogman
16.Aug.2007 9.31pm
Robert Trogman's picture

Neue Futura (Futura ND) is the most complete version. The small caps were from the original drawings from Paul Renner. I have not had any problems with it in Font Book.