I really like this font. Has there been any more work done on it, or has it already been released? (…and if so, where? ;) ) David Thometz
I like the font.
I’ll second that question.
reckon i been waitin’ myself.
Anyone have a link to the critique of this? I don’t see it in the san serif section. thanks
Odd…. What happened to the font sample(s) and the critiques? David
I’m intrigued…what does Pill Gothic look like?!!
Follow this link to get the skinny on Pill and other missing threads: http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/30/18545.html?1066163062 Randy
It seems like pill gothic has achieved martyr status. I’m aﬀraid that the original won’t live up to the hype. I’ll see if I can dig up some old images.
Here is a pdf.
Amen, brother Joseph. Amen! Christian, if you’d like to chat about distribution of Pill Gothic through Veer, please contact me. It’s a killer face.
Another pdf. I added small caps and a ton of punctuation to the lineal skeleton. Some of the punctuation is kind of rough, and I haven’t done any kerning. Next step will be polishing the italic, then adding weight. I threw in some OpenType features (small caps and a couple of ligatures). It’s not as tricky as I thought it would be. It really irks me that it only works in InDesign, and even their implementation is pretty weak.
I think the lc “k” is out of character. Otherwise great stuﬀ overall. hhp
Christian, I am assuming that are you building this face using strokes to begin with, right? The only reason I mention this is because when I zoomed in on the PDF I noticed that there are a few end caps overlapping other curves, particularly in the section character. By the way, did you get my email reply? Grant
Yeah, it’s still pretty rough. I’ve been going through and cleaning up all the bezier curves. Here is a pdf of a middle weight. The punctuation is still rough, but the characters are pretty clean at this point. I think the quotes are wrong, and the g isn’t working as well in a body of text. I think I need to lighten it up and possibly give it some more space.
>Beating down your door… As long as it doesn’t seem like we’re a bunch of stalkers.
Expanding on Joseph’s comments, it the quirkiness in those few characters which really sets Pill Gothic apart from being just another DIN (JAD?) I especially like how you’ve modiﬁed the cross-stroke of the e in the ae ligature to slope into meeting the one from the a. Perhaps the standard e should use the same type of diagonal. Without going overboard, there may be a few other select characters that could also utilize that diagonal stroke — the tail of the y and the tail of the Q, for example. I would agree the M would ﬁt in a bit better dropped to the baseline, and in terms colour across the uppercase, I would consider narrowing the width of the U — it looks particularly out of place the all-caps heading for your regular weight PDF. I really like how this family is progressing.
Joe, thanks for that comparison. I don’t know where all the DIN talk is coming from. Pill is further from it than many other designs. hhp
I don’t think you were insulting (and certainly not trying to be insulting), and I don’t know about veins and arteries, but Pill seems quite distant from DIN to me. hhp
Caps are usually more convergent — they have a much narrower expressive range than lc. I think a good way to compare fonts is to look at the texture they make when setting a lot of text. In this regard AG/FG are far apart, as would be DIN/Pill. hhp
Here is a pdf of nearly ﬁnalized spacing (the other one was InDesign optical) without kerning. I also included the bold (so far, it needs some tweeks—any suggestions are appreciated) and the accented characters. I also included some alternate characters. To Grant’s comments about the e, the original e had an angled cross-bar, but I couldn’t decide if I liked the horizontal cross bar better. I have since reinstated the angled e. As for the DIN stuﬀ, if Pill is really a useful alternative, I am ﬂattered. They do have a similar feel, but Pill is much ‘trickier’. Whether that’s a good thing or bad I guess depends on how you use it. I would like to add some more alternate characters to tone Pill down or dress it up.
Spacing: I think it’s slightly loose. M: wider? Hey, the smallcaps one is diﬀerent! And to me better. e: I like the angled bar one. g: I think the open one doesn’t work as it stands, but an open bottom might be a great opportunity to try to make the angled join less steep, matching the “a”/”e”. The diﬀerent angle in the “g” has always been the biggest thing that has bugged me about Pill. k: deﬁnitely the straight-legged one. s: needs work. y: the curved tail one. Pound: beak out of character. I’d put more staightness in the Pilcrow and Section. Your accents seem out of character — more rigid please! Same with the Cedilla. The “OE” is a “CE”. The Bold: I think it needs some modeling to avoid dark spots. But be very careful not to soften the character. Almost there! hhp
Tricks! More tricks! Just kidding. I don’t like tricks for tricks’ sake. I didn’t want a simple oblique, so I added some curves to make it feel more italic, for lack of a better word. Here [swf.7k] is what I had previously done on the italics. The y needs some work, of course, and some of the other forms will change, possibly with some alternates.
That’s nice! Some great glyphs there. The only things: - The “Q” is too tricky. :-) - The “S”/”s” don’t look happy — maybe soften their spines. - I’m not sure about the descender of the “f” — in this face it seems contrived. - You’re gonna put dots on the “i” and “j”, right? Maybe circular ones. hhp
Pill is original without looking odd, which is an achievement, especially in a sans serif. Somehow the original higher middle on the M looks more consistent with your face, but is a bit awkward in your original. Johnston Underground, which looks wider (as Hrant suggests) and ends further oﬀ the baseline, has a nice balance. http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/p22/underground/ On the S and s, Palatino’s unusual S’s (also in the italic) might give you ideas on how to keep your ‘pill’ arch at the top and bottom, and make the connecting stroke stronger.
Wow — there’s still a lot of action in the development of Pill Gothic. Nice. Great work, Christian! Since I wrote you early in the year, I am looking monthly, if there is something new about that font :-) I hope, it will be ﬁnished soon. that would be the perfect type for all of my things. I MUST have it! ;-) Josch
Hi Christian. Just noticed the lower case s. The top curve is feeling a little pinched. Try lowering the spine just a tad so it’s only a hair above optical center. Cheers, Randy
christian: Im quite fond of this face. Please keep up the good work. I think you have found that many of us here appreciate this very much. Would love to see it released, like Grant oﬀered, maybe through veer? Hildebrant.
Dylan want. Dylan want. Please?
I have been tweeking on the spacing and have added some kerning pairs. It is very close to being ﬁnished. Any commentary on spacing would be appreciated. I have also added some old style ﬁgures for text settings.
Christian, Great work! Your font is beautiful and I will deﬁnitely be adding it to my collection when you are ﬁnished. Let us know when it goes live. As far as spacing, the overall color seems very consistent. Although it is diﬃcult to get a feel for the true spacing when the text is justiﬁed. I tripped over a few words in the second graph, but this could simply be because those lines were a little cramped. I would love to see the old style numerals as the default. They really play nicely with the other characters. Go Christian!!!!
Yeah, yeah. Here’s the ragged text. : )
Stephen, good call. — It’s all “clicking” very nicely. The overall spacing looks great, except: 1) Important: your blank space is too narrow. 2) The “r” is loose on the right. The OS numerals bother me. At the very least I think they need to be bigger in the body, like the height of the smallcaps. Some other stuﬀ: 1) In both sets of numerals, the “2”, “4” and “7” are dark. 2) Why is the eszet short? 3) Some of the diagonals are a bit dark. Like look at the “Z”. 4) The bars of “f” and “t” need to be thicker. 5) I think the “S” needs a rigid spine. 6) Wassup with that megatrap in the Bold smallcap “A”? Almost there! hhp
Well, I don’t know what’s already been kerned in there, but you have to account for linguistics, like how often what ends up on the right side of the “r”; that determines your base spacing — and then comes kerning. Plus you have to decide how bad touching is — I think people who have kerning oﬀ don’t mind touching that much. Also, in a sans face with such a strong-beaked “r” you’re in a position of relying more on kerning to really make things click. — That “A” can be seen in the December 29 PDF, in the captions for the side stuﬀ on page 1. hhp
Yeah, the small-cap A was messed up. It has since been ﬁxed. Here is the same text set in bold.
Here’s a question. I have the font set up as a multiple master, where the regular weight (as seen in the above samples) is 400. The bold (as seen in the pdf in this post) is 1000. I plan on releasing a light (0), regular (400) and bold (1000). I don’t think that a meduim weight (650) would be gratuitous. Would any other in-between weights be useful, or would they just be more font list clutter? Opinions please:
Four weights is much better than three, if they’re paired right. James Montalbano once explained it (on Typophile) very sensically — assuming I remember it right: the Regular should be weighted for text, the Bold for emphasis in a body of Regular; the Light should be an alternate weight for text; and the Semi (or Demi) an emphasis weight for the Light. All this means that you don’t want them spaced mathematically, but instead according to function. Also, in practice the Semi can serve very well for text, except it doesn’t have a “bold” (in a set of 4). hhp
Overall very impressive. I think the lower case s could still use some work; to me it is a little falling backwards to the left. The upper case S also does this, but only very very slightly. The lining 2 also I think does not work so well — something about the curve of the spine; the hanging 2 works.
Here are the four weights, along with the complete character set.
Don’t have access to a printer to give any real insight, but i did notice some path direction issues (overlaps) see the eth, yen, D-bar, not equal, and a couple other (in all weights). To that I only want to add: superior job on this font. Well done! Randy
Christian: These weights look great. The only thing that stood out though was the numeral 4. It appears heavier than the other numbers on screen and on laser proofs. It is most noticeable with the fractions. I think because it’s closed, it tends to appear heavier than the surrounding numerals.
Christian, sorry to pester, but could you show some samples with the four weights intermixed? Like a block of each with each of the other three used for emphasis. And a question: what made you include the L-bar and l-bar? I’ve been getting mixed signals about whether to include them in my own “base” encoding or not. Oh, and I think your curly braces need more oomph (a highly technical term diﬃcult to explain*). * Credit goes to David Berlow for that one. hhp
Christian: I just emailed you an annotated version of the four weight sample PDF. Hoepfully everything makes sense in my comments.
I’m still chasing down all the gremlins hiding in the curves. Who knew it would be such a pain in the neck? I’m getting pretty close, though. Here is a sample with the weights intermixed. For fun, I turned on the alternates in the Light/ Medium combination. Thanks for the comments.
Both look solid to me. hhp
Hinting needs some work, though. light/regular lc l, h, p, u have inconsistent rendering in that test, though in 4 weights sample they don’t seem to. Did you lose your hints somewhere?
Christian, can you implement the Spanish characters?
Alavaro, si, he implementado todas las letras necesarias para espa
HI Christian, Nicely done on the extra light. So tricky to balance the modulation! Your obliques look pretty good to me. The following picture illustrates the major distortions that happen when mathematically skewing a font. All letters are thinned vertically as you mentioned (and ﬁxed). The letters that get most distorted are the round ones. You may know all this, but I thought I’d post it anyways for typophile ediﬁcation: 1. The verticals become more thin as noted above 2. The bottom right and upper left (if applicable) thin out 3. The upper right and bottom left (if applicable) thicken up 4. The upper right and bottom left contract (the curve gets tighter) 5. The bottom right and upper left expand (the curve opens up) Also note generally that the distortion gets bigger and the glyph more narrow as the angle increases. In my (limited) experience the tricky and time consuming part is ﬁxing 4 & 5 (usally 2 & 3 at the same time). I was given this tip by Ed Benguiat: The obliqued curve should look pretty close to what it would be if you oblique it half as much. In other words, if you oblique it 20%, make the curves emulate the 10% version. I ﬁnd pasting the 10% version into the mask layer a handy guide. You still have to ﬁx the modulation problem, but it’s a good start. Cheers, Randy
More about curve compensation on italics and obliques at Briem’s website. I think your obliques are ﬁne, Christian.
Superior Eduardo. Briem seems to slip my mind too often. I forgot the rotation the additional degrees! BTW I agree that pill obliques are working. Randy
Obliques: I don’t see much distortion, but I do think they need to stand apart a little more from the roman. Your angle is already steep, and you’ve already made it narrower, so I’d try making the obliques slightly lighter than their roman counterparts, and maybe change some forms too (like make the “a” and maybe the “g” mono, but don’t make the “f” descending — too old-fashioned). And a question: Are fractions for old-style numerals supposed to be full-height, or really small? hhp