Underware’s Unibody can be used in interesting ways as seen here. It’s also free.

Unibody has gaps between the “pixels”, which I
think most probably ruin readability in print.

Lo-Res is not a bad choice, but I wouldn’t use
the narrow cuts, for reasons of readability.
If economy is an issue (and when isn’t it? :-)
it’s probably better to use a wider cut, smaller.
Also, I might use the soft-corner cuts of Lo-Res.

Fedra Bitmap: I can’t find a sample.

I think FontFont has a number of good print-savvy bitmap fonts.

But a question: you say 10pt, but that doesn’t mean you’re limited
to 10 pixels of height. How fine/coarse do you want the text to look?

In any case, this is interesting - please show us your progress!

hhp

Hi,

Unibody is nice, but has the gaps.

Here it is an example of lo-res 9 narrow.

I can’t show you an example of Fedra bitmap because I only saw it on the specimen book. You can order one at Typotheque.

I can use more than 10 px. I just need it to be on a text size, but there’s no need to be very small.

I’ll show you the progress!

> I only saw it on the specimen book.

The one with the fly on it? I have that - let me try to find it.

Does Lo-Res have a binocular “a” alternate? If not, forget it.

Hey, what about something like this? :-)
http://typophile.com/node/6215

hhp

I believe ’Fredra Bitmap’ might actually be called Fedra Eleven?
At least that search turned up some images. :)

hrant, thanks for the link to the Garadot thread... but that was 2003 — has it been released? All the google search results pretty much lead back here.

Jelmar, thanks. Identifont is also showing samples for Fedra Nine and Twelve.
In many spots however this bitmap font family seems to be suffering from too
close an association with the outline original.

Iran, try contacting the designer:
http://typophile.com/user/1109/contact _
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miguel_hernandez/ _
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miguel_hernandez/sets/72157600059539884/

hhp

Maria, here’s another way you can go: choose a superhinted outline
font that generates the bitmap font that you like best at the size that
you’d like, then... http://www.fontlab.com/font-converter/fontflasher/

hhp

Why would you use a bitmap face for print at 10pt? At that size, the pixels wouldn’t be emphasized and I have a hunch it’d just look like bad printing. The only time I see pixel faces working well on paper is when they are heavily stylized letterforms and used as display faces.

For a while my personal logo was a very enlarged small bitmap typeface (early 2000...I was a web designer...heavy concept, eh? ;o)

Alas, I think at least half of the people I’d present my work do would invariably point out ’I think your printer is missing this font’ as they just saw it as a printing error.

Well, for one thing text setting is about subtlety. A feature of the font doesn’t have to be “emphasized” (in fact some would say it shouldn’t be emphasized) for the text to work.

Will some people think “it’s a mistake”? Yes, but Maria has to factor in what percentage of her readers that will be - and chances are it’s very small.* If it’s done right, I think most people will either not notice consciously or they’ll think something along the lines of “Hey, this printing is artsy”. :-) And some graphic designers are likely to actualy like it consciously. Also, the fact that some people will think “it’s a mistake” could be a conversation piece, especially if/when they end up finding out that it wasn’t! For example maybe by reading a carefully-composed colophon.

* And if somebody is savvy enough to think such a thing, he might be savvy enough to realize that that couldn’t have been what was subbed in for a missing font (unless Maria’s choice is very generic-looking).

That said, I do think that the “resolution” of the pixelfont has to be chosen very carefully, and not least based on the repro quality.

Maybe we need to see a PDF?

hhp

Hello hrant

My specimen book has a little ant on the cover, but if you have a fly, maybe they done different versions.

The Lo-Res 12 regular has a binocular “a” (didn’t know that word applied to typography, funny). I think I can use that version, instead of the 9.

I need to make more experiences on paper to decide. As soon as I have something interesting I’ll post it here.

I’m working on two projects at the same time, so probably it will take some time before I can post something.

“Identifont is also showing samples for Fedra Nine and Twelve.
In many spots however this bitmap font family seems to be suffering from too close an association with the outline original.”

In what ways do you think this can have a bad influence on legibility?

I want people to realize they’re reading on a pixel font, but I also don’t want to make the text difficult to read. Or, in other words: I want it to have a digital presence and to be subtle at the same time. Don’t know if that’s possible, but before moving on, I’m trying to figure out what will be the best font for that work.

Miguel Hernandez typeface is very beautiful. Maybe to beautiful to cause the impression I desire.

Thanks for your collaboration!

Ah, I guess it was an ant! Haven’t looked for it yet though.

The difference in the “a” is one good reason to use the 12. A bigger reason would be a general increase in readability, since the bitmaps will have more fidelity to “expected” letterforms. But, as you imply, a critical element of deciding how coarse the bitmap font should be is the balance between “flavor” and readability, and that will only reveal itself through some good actual testing. It’s possible the 12 will be too subtle at 10pt (although I doubt it).

> In what ways do you think this can have a bad influence on legibility?

Good question. I guess it comes down to deviating from “ideal” bitmaps simply to preserve the abstract character of the original (a character that does not necessarily promote readability of its own). I do think this sort of thing has value within a bitmap font family of multiple sizes, but trying to maintain it too much between bitmaps and outlines tends to backfire.

hhp

“I guess it comes down to deviating from “ideal” bitmaps simply to preserve the abstract character of the original”

I got your point. You mean it’s like trying to dissimulate the essence of a bitmap typeface. Valuing it’s form instead of it’s actual usability.

I think my eyes are not accurate enough to see that differences, when I look at Fedra Bitmap I can’t relate it to the outline of Fedra... but in a theoretical level I understand your point and it makes sense to me.

By the way, Typotheque is working on the open type format of Fedra Bitmap, so it will take a while before the font is available for sail again. That’s why I couldn’t find it on their web site!

One place where bitmaps suffer a great deal through a linking with outlines is width: often you will see a bitmap letter that could have been much nicer if it were one pixel wider or narrower, but its width was dictated by a quantization of its width in the outline width. This can affect all kinds of things in a bitmap, even when done by a master: look at the “v” in 12ppem Georgia...

hhp

My question right now is that has anyone encountered difficulty when submitting a pixelated font such as unibody to a printer? I’ve already sent pre-press these fonts, and they seemed concerned about the resolution? I’ve told them it’s a “on purpose pixelated font style,” yet they want printable version of unibody? Am I going crazy here, or is the pre-press department unfamiliar with this typeface? Your speedy reply is much obliged:) (Also another beautiful pixel font I’ve discovered lately is FFF Atlantis, and FFF Corporate)