🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <zisk-191192111648@macne006.boston.us.adobe.com> zisk@adobe.com  
(Stephen Zisk) writes:
> In response to what Chris Lewis and Walter C3arlip wrote, and amplifying
> what Jim Delahunt said, I want to add my $.02. As a caveat, let me say
> I am not a type designer or expert, just an interested amateur.

Same here, but I am trying to get into type design now.

>     4.) The reasons for different designs at different sizes in hot type
>         (and Multiple Master Fonts) are complex and subtle:

As far as I've seen, in most cases it was for mechanical
reasons (as the poster said).  Trouble is, some people
expect it now.  "Hysterical raisins." :-) 

>     6.) There is no reason "linear scaling" should look bad within a
>         common-sense range of sizes.

I'll second that.  I've been messing with Type 1 fonts and
scaling and have been very happy.  Eventually, you get
little black smudges, but in general if I could read it, it
looked pretty good.


Does text look funny to you if you get a little closer or
farther (assuming you can still read it)?  Seems like the
same perceptual problem to me.  Getting farther from or
closer to text basically linearly scales it until you hit
resolution limitations. 

Of course, if I take my glasses off, I can't read anything. :-)

I >would< like to hear any suggestions people have for
modifying fonts at different sizes and the reasoning
behind them so I could experiment a bit and see what I
think.  Always looking for more information. :-)

---
save /- 1 string def[331 64 779242 46 396 46 871217102 46 14782 10]{dup
99 lt{- 0 3 -1 roll put -}{32 =string cvrs}ifelse print} forall restore