Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Wed Nov 26 2008 - 16:32:24 CST

  • Next message: verdy_p: "Re: Why people still want to encode precomposed letters"

    On 26 Nov 2008, at 20:29, verdy_p wrote:

    >> Although normal sizes and up can be scaled proportionally, small
    >> point sizes may need special designs, for example, being a bit wider.
    > Not just wider (something that a lens could also perform), but also
    > lighter (it you increase the chracter width,
    > this will maintain the horizontal physical average blackness, but
    > not the visual blackness because the stroke width
    > will not be coherent, and the slanted strokes will look darker than
    > they are, as this impacts the visual vertical
    > blackness as well).
    > So, stroke width adjustments are necessary only for this reason,
    > but also because ink on paper tends to leakage
    > around, producing darker than expected results, up to the point
    > where some separated strokes will collide (this
    > would happen anyway, even if not makign the characters wider using
    > proportional reduction).
    > There are other adjustments that also depend on the type of ink
    > used; but due to the huge progresses that occured
    > in ink technologies, in paper coating quality, and in the precision
    > of lasers, some adjustments that were needed more agressively in
    > the past could have their effect reduced now. Fonts that are
    > prepared for modern printers
    > should contain hints for those stroke width adjustments depending
    > on the type of support, type of ink, and type of
    > laser or bubble jet head, using profiles similar to what has been
    > done for adjusting color profiles with CIE-based
    > standards...

    It seems me a good typesetting model should separate typesetting
    smearing compensations from the intended typesetting.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 26 2008 - 16:34:37 CST