🚀 go-pugleaf

In <LEE.91Jul23111926@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:

>My first reaction when I started using TeX and LaTeX was that the scheme
>of bitmap font generation from MF descriptions was in conflict with
>font handling in PostScript (individual character rendering from outlines,
>hinting, etc.)  The two schemes are doing very similar things at different
>times.  Especially in Computer Modern, the faces vary much more as sizes
>change than the average hinted PS Type 1 font; in that sense, the CM fonts
>might be considered higher quality.  On the other hand, the tradeoff between
>character rendering and rasterization time (usually at the printer) in
>PostScript and huge storage requirements for MF ("pk" or "gf") bitmaps
>seems to favor the PostScript scheme, especially now that large font
>caches and RISC engines are fairly inexpensive.

>I repeat Mr. MCKay's plea:  If anyone is working seriously on conversion
>of MF input to PS Type 1 hinted fonts, I would like to hear about it.
>If not, I'm tempted to give it a try.  Yes, I know that it's probably
>about as complex a job as rewriting METAFONT from scratch, and might take
>years to be fully operational.  Sounds like fun, huh?
>--

I am very interested in this subject and have some thoughts and questions:-

Although the cm fonts aren't truly scalable, due to different rendering
at different sizes, it would probably be acceptable to use a 1pt PS
definition for say cmr10 and scale that. This would generate anything
in the range of say 7 - 14 fairly well, but it might be necessary to
actually select a different font using the mac for a different point
size. 

Considering that plain TeX basically uses just 3 or 4 standard sizes,
on the mac you could stick to these basic sizes and NOT scale them very
far from their intended sizes (if at all). eg cmr10 for 7 - 14 pt,
cmr17 for larger sizes, etc. Now if you didn't actually scale them at
all, then bingo, you could use the bitmaps that dvips generates as laser
downloadable font definitions thus giving you fast printing and perfect
rendition a la TeX. To do this you would create a TeX file with EVERY
character in it and use dvips to generate a complete set of bitmaps.
But I have doubts as to the PS that dvips generates - ie is it a proper
font dict with cacheing, etc? Anyway, it would still print damn fast
due to the bitmap definitions, actually it might even be advantageous
if it doesn't cache, cause then you don't flush that foul Times crap
that everyone else insists on using out of you Laser Writer (this could 
otherwise slow down printing a LOT).

Now, what is this hinting business - do you mean to say that type 1 fonts
can reshape themselves at different point sizes? If so, could you 
theoretically reproduce Computer Modern EXACTLY?? if not, then how close?

I have seen a recently done PS definition for all the CM fonts, but I'm 
pretty sure they scale linearly and are therefore only really suitable at the 
one point size each. You are looking at about 80k of PS per font per size.

Another possibility is this RTF to TeX translator that someone announced 
recently, we live in hope!

Let's keep this debate going 'cause one of these days it will lead to someone
doing a wysywyg word processor for X that uses TeX fonts, then it's ta-ta Frame,
Word, etc, (dream on!).


-> Mark
============================================================================
Mark Rawling,    CSIRO Division of Information Technology,
	         High Performance Computation Group,
``Go Demons''    phone: (+ 61 3) 282 2634  fax: (+ 61 3) 282 2600