From: Hans Aberg (haberg@math.su.se)
Date: Wed Nov 26 2008 - 16:32:24 CST
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.
Hans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 26 2008 - 16:34:37 CST