Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!wjh12!bb
From: bb@wjh12.harvard.edu (Brent Byer)
Newsgroups: comp.fonts
Subject: Re: Scaling Outline Fonts
Message-ID: <195@wjh12.harvard.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 88 03:22:51 GMT
References: <5352@pyr.gatech.EDU> <871@hjuxa.UUCP> <49095@sun.uucp> <7660@brl-smoke.ARPA> <49247@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: bb@wjh12.UUCP (Brent Byer)
Organization: Textware Intl., Cambridge MA
Lines: 61

[ First, a thank you to Richard Sexton for taking the initiative
  to start this group. ]

I was going to stay out of this haggling a while longer, but ...

It's been lots of fun watching the several self-appointed "experts"
display their ignorance.  Trouble is, though, that few of the
spectators would realize it; they just get misled, and poorly
introduced to a fascinating subject.

[ Please don't misinterpret me.  I am *NOT* an expert at this; just
  a little more experienced than most.  We would all benefit if
  Charles Bigelow (of Bigelow & Holmes) or Matthew Carter (of
  Bitstream Inc.) would visit here occasionally and keep us on an
  even keel, with a sprinkle of enlightenment now and then.
  They are true masters.  ]

[ I believe that ]  Font scaling was employed, as a technological
advancement, with the first *photo*typesetters.  These typically
used a glass base upon which was a high-quality master of the font's
character set.  Compared to racks of type, with each size separate,
this breakthrough was welcomed by many, the compositor's union and
traditionalists being the exception.

Soon after its introduction, a serious shortcoming was observed.
[ Actually, I am sure the experts of the previous era saw it
  coming, but of course, no one listened. ]

Note that a typical letterform, in practice, includes its
"side-bearings", the narrow columns of 'whitespace' bounding
the 'glyph' itself.  When the character is magnified (optically),
not only is the glyph enlarged, but also the side-bearings!

This is not good, because the esthetic (and psycho-visual??)
need for this inter-character separation is not linear.
[ I believe ] this was the primary reason that separate
masters were created for different size ranges.  While
they were at it, minor embellishments were added (primarily
in the serifs, but also subtle nuances like 'ink-traps').

Keep in mind that the composition (type setting) facilities
used with these early contraptions was extremely primitive,
probably evolving from mechanical looms :-).  Hence, it was
not feasible to just "program out" the unwanted whitespace in
larger type.

As the programmability of composition equipment advanced, there
was less need for separate masters, but a new tradition had
started, and there were those who desired to preserve it (and
the additional revenue it fetched). 

A well-designed (and implemented) font does not suffer from
accurate scaling at reasonably high resolution.


	Enough (for now),

	  Brent Byer	( harvard!wjh12!bb   ihnp4!ihesa!textware!brent )


"Nancy, who's that ugly dwarf with his hand in your mouth?"