New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
I wish there were more twin book faces
Posted by Uli in
22 Sep 2012 — 9:09am
22 Sep 2012 — 9:09am
I wish there were more twin book faces like these:
http://www.sanskritweb.net/fontdocs/century-schoolbook-tt-ps.pdf
You will have to make high-resolution prints to see the difference.
And make printouts with different papers: calendered, coated, etc.
Book printers will know what I mean.
User login
Support our Sponsors
22 Sep 2012 — 9:43am
Could you please elaborate on the differences for those of who are not book printers and do not have regular access to the means of printing at high resolution?
22 Sep 2012 — 10:16am
You mean grades? Font Bureau has a lot of those. And they're not as dorky-looking as Century Schoolbook.
hhp
22 Sep 2012 — 1:27pm
A brief discussion of fonts with grades:
http://www.typophile.com/node/81483
22 Sep 2012 — 10:44pm
hrant:
>Font Bureau has a lot of those.
But they are sold only in Boston.
23 Sep 2012 — 8:27am
H&FJ does as well.
23 Sep 2012 — 10:16am
Typotheque’s Greta also.
Generally speaking, grading has been implemented for newspaper faces.
The focus of book face grading is different: optical scaling.
If the criterion of grading is equal metrics for different weights, then Handsome joins the party!
An earlier graded (different weights, same metrics) face: NPL Else.
Even earlier: Goudy Catalogue.
23 Sep 2012 — 10:48am
I was under the impression that Uli was more concerned with the “rendering” differences between PS and TT fonts than with grades or opticals.
However, here are a couple of lists about the latter: http://typophile.com/node/81517#comment-461716
23 Sep 2012 — 10:48am
Why TT (TrueType) vs. PS (Postscript)?
23 Sep 2012 — 10:55am
Which I call "uniwidth". Because it's not the same thing. In contra to different weights, grades are supposed to compensate for output conditions in order to produce the same apparent weight.
Good question.
Riccardo is making a valiant guess, but I'm not getting that from the original post.
hhp
23 Sep 2012 — 12:26pm
> Why TT (TrueType) vs. PS (Postscript)?
The only reason for adding the suffix TT was to make the two font names different. Fonts with identical font names cannot be used on the same system.
Hinting differences between TT and PS fonts are irrelevant here, because the offset plate-making raster image processor discards all TT and PS hints, which are not required for the high resolution of 1000 dots per cm (which is equal to 2540 dots per inch).
23 Sep 2012 — 12:33pm
At text sizes, that's true. But for small matter hints still... matter. :-)
But why:
- not use different names that make sense?
- use a difference in how the curves are defined?
BTW, just to be clear: you don't really believe that FontBureau fonts can only be purchased/used in Boston, right?
hhp
24 Sep 2012 — 1:12am
> At text sizes, that's true. But for small matter hints still... matter. :-)
Unless you have an eagle's eyes or unless you have the habit of reading books typeset in small point sizes with a microscope, you will not see any difference, if the imagesetter dropped the hints, provided that the offset lithography printing plate was produced with a computer-to-plate imagesetter with a resolution of 2540 dots per inch (= 1000 dots per centimeter).
24 Sep 2012 — 6:12am
Not in individual letters, but the texture of a paragraph can become blotchy = ugly. And this is visible to the mind's eye even if the consciousness is too busy to notice.
hhp
24 Sep 2012 — 1:55pm
not @2540 dpi
"Which I call "uniwidth". "
We had duplexing of weights for years, so would that be "uniwidth" too?
24 Sep 2012 — 2:06pm
Duplexing mostly referred to an Italic having its metrics forced from the Roman, no? My problems with "duplexing" is that it has a hang-up with 2, and it's not very descriptive.
BTW a related idea that I find useful is when a font can be made uniwidth with another when a specific tracking value is applied. For example a Bold that becomes uniwidth with the Roman when a tracking of -10 is applied (something I've done in my Patria, and we almost pulled off in Ernestine). I've been calling that "fixed offset".
hhp
25 Sep 2012 — 5:07am
Not exactly. It refers to two faces fitting on the same set of matrices. The most common pairing was certainly a Roman with corresponding Italic. But you also had Roman duplexed with Bold.
And you had special setups like a body text duplexed with gothic for certain kinds of work — like Corona with Erbar Bold, for example, or Excelsior with Memphis Bold.
So, duplexing is uniwidth for two.
25 Sep 2012 — 6:29am
Thanks for the elaboration.
So is the vote for "multiplexing" instead of "uniwidth"?
hhp
25 Sep 2012 — 6:48am
> Duplexing ... refers to two faces fitting on the same set of matrices.
In the post-Linotype, photocomposition era, there were also typefaces with identical widths, for example Serifa and Glypha. In small point sizes, switching from Serifa to Glypha was an interesting alternative:
http://www.sanskritweb.net/fontdocs/serifa-glypha.jpg
25 Sep 2012 — 1:19pm
"For example a Bold that becomes uniwidth with the Roman when a tracking of -10 is applied"
That can work. I'm not sure about the name, maybe Duplacked instead.