🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cZAyiJm00WBLM2epx_@andrew.cmu.edu> mr2t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Tod Rose) writes:
>In <110300013@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, Doug McDonald
><mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
>>... genuine (metal) Times Roman font. The letters of real (metal) 
>>fonts are usually shaped differently (not scaled versions of one 
>>another), at least a little, for each font (size of type).
>
>One of the big selling points of Adobe's fonts is the hinting technology
>that they engineer into their faces.  It basically enables the kind of
>thing you're talking about -- the 24 point Times Roman is not shaped
>exactly like the 12 point Times Roman, and neither is quite like the
>16-point Times Roman.  This is the trick that Adobe worked on for such a
>long time, and it's this trick (along with superior typeface design)
>that makes Adobe faces worth the extra-high prices.
>
Now, wait a minute.  I've always thought that font "hints" were instructions
for mapping characters onto relatively low-resolution grids in an attractive
way.  If what you're saying is true, then a 6-point 'x' output at 600 dpi
would look different than a 12-point 'x' output at 300 dpi (after you
enlarge the 6-point 'x' by a factor of 2).  My understanding has been that
the size of the characters relative to the output resolution is what is
important, not the absolute size of the characters.  Am I wrong?  Certainly,
I'll admit that there are modifications that could be made to small characters
to make them more readable and more printable than strictly reduced versions
of corresponding large characters, and I'll agree that this has been common
practice for centuries; but I hadn't heard that this use of absolute
typeface size was a feature of PostScript.

Is it?

v   v sssss|| joseph hall                      || 4116 Brewster Drive
 v v s   s || jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet)   || Raleigh, NC  27606
  v   sss  || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist
-----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.