Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!oliveb!sun!cairo!tut
From: tut%cairo@Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill)
Newsgroups: comp.fonts
Subject: Scaling Outline Fonts
Message-ID: <49095@sun.uucp>
Date: 11 Apr 88 20:31:09 GMT
References: <5352@pyr.gatech.EDU> <871@hjuxa.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 47

In article <871@hjuxa.UUCP>, nrh@hjuxa.UUCP (HASLOCK) writes:
> I just completed a training course in PostScript and the point was made
> repeatedly that simply scaling a font is not good enough.  Adobe designed
> its fonts to work best at around 12pt.  Scaling to below 6pt gives results in
> a poor balance between thick and thin strokes especially on high resolution
> printers.  300dpi printers simply distort the image because of dot placement.
> Scaling to more than 24pt shows up imperfections in the baseline.

Several messages lately have repeated the old adage that you can't scale
one outline to all point sizes.  This is certainly the way typographers
used to feel.  Some still do, but tastes are changing.  People who believe
they have any aesthetic sense at all should make up their own minds.

Some history is in order.  In the old days of lead type and hot metal type,
there were often three master outlines: one for small sizes (under 9 point),
one for medium sizes (10-16 point), and one for large sizes (above 18 point).
This was thought to create the most legible text at all sizes.  If you look
at an old book, you'll notice that the footnotes often appear to use another
font.  Many times, it's just a different master size.  Look closely.  Do you
think the small size is more legible than what you see today?  Personally
I think it looks fat and ugly compared to today's type.

When phototypesetters started to replace hot metal type, they scaled fonts
optically.  Old Unix hands probably remember the CAT/4, which had letters
on film that were optically magnified or reduced according to what size
was required.  Rotating the lens apparatus was slow, so when the CAT/4
produced equations that changed point size a lot, it could take up to half
an hour to set a page.  (And you think the LazyWriter is slow!)

Mathematical scaling of outlines is similar in effect to optical scaling.
The difference is that optics are well-understood, whereas the mathematical
discipline of font production is still in its infancy.  Don Knuth (with
Metafont) and Adobe (with PostScript) have made good strides in this field,
but neither Metafont nor PostScript works as well as scaling systems will
probably work in the future.

It's been about 50 years since optical scaling has been available, and
about 10 years since mathematical scaling has been used in commercial
typesetters (the Linotron 101 and APS-5) and in more affordable laser
printers (the LazyWriter).  During this time, readers have gotten used to
having both small and large point sizes produced from medium-size masters.
Some readers actually like it better this way.

Before people go spouting off about "doing it right," why not take a look
at a font catalog and see if you really think that different font masters
for different sizes is the right approach.  While you're at it, perhaps
you'd like to consider trading your late model car for a Model T.