Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!huxley!glenn From: glenn@huxley.huxley.bitstream.com (Glenn P. Parker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: FontMonger conversion to TrueType Message-ID: Date: 21 May 91 19:47:50 GMT References: <19746@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Sender: glenn@huxley.UUCP Reply-To: (Glenn Parker) Distribution: comp Organization: Bitstream, Inc. Lines: 23 In-reply-to: leue@galen.crd.ge.com's message of 21 May 91 12:36:58 GMT In article <19746@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> leue@galen.crd.ge.com (Bill Leue) writes: > Although I'm moderately satisfied with the result, there are a couple > of puzzles about the TT fonts that I got as the output. For instance, > the TT Garamond light doesn't look nearly as good on the screen at > 12 points as did the PS1 version running with ATM 2.0. For large > sizes (24 pts or more), the results look pretty much the same, and all > sizes seem to print decently. I wonder why the TT screen rendering is > so lousy? Sorry to nitpick about wording, but it seems unfair to lay the blame on TrueType. TrueType is only doing what it was told to in the font created via FontMonger. I haven't seen any FontMonger output, so I don't really know if it would qualify as "lousy" in my book. Nevertheless, I'm not surprised that the conversion is imperfect, especially for small sizes. So a better question is "Why is the conversion from PS1 to TT so lousy?" -- Glenn P. Parker glenn@bitstream.com Bitstream, Inc. uunet!huxley!glenn 215 First Street BIX: parker Cambridge, MA 02142-1270