Re: AFMs for Blue Sky CM/PS fonts...

["Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>]

   Berthold Horn writes:

   > A related question is whether PFA files should be posted as well,
   > since DPS needs those.  Although it is easy to convert PFA to PFB
   > and vice versa using some PD software.

   This is misleading, since Display PostScript systems can do pretty much
   any rendering that regular PostScript system can do, and so in use with
   TeX these fonts do not need AFMs. Certainly on my NeXT I can use the
   BlueSky fonts with TeXview or with dvips and Preview without having the
   AFMs installed. Similarly, I'm happily using the PFB files in this setup.

Like I said, if you want to use the fonts with Display PostScript you
need to install them properly, and to install them properly you need
PFA *and* AFM files :=)  As opposed to some special purpose hack for
TeX and DVIPS only, that is.

   Only if I were setting the font up as a native font for NEXTSTEP
   applications (which, if I recall correctly, itself is problematic owing

That *is* what I mean.  System level support for fonts. Available for
*all* applications.  No need for each application to invent its own.

   to the encoding of the font -- something to do with the space glyph)
   would I need to have the font in PFA format and need to have the AFM
   files.

Well, yes, that devilish glitch at 32!  Of course it is quite trivial
to reencode the fonts in PFA and AFM form (unlike Macintosh font format
or Windows PFB where it is a bit more work).  These fonts all *do* have a
`space' character, unlike the original CM fonts.  All you need to do
is move it to char code 32 in both PFA and AFM, and condemn that glitch
to hyperspace (C -1 ;);

   ... in another posting, Berthold Horn writes:
   > NeXT does not provide a good comparison test because it is not using a
   > top quality rasterizer. And on printers it will depend on the quality
   > of the rasterizer also (i.e. is it a true Adobe rasterizer).

   Huh? Have you ever actually seen these fonts on a NeXT? The NeXT has an
   Adobe rasterizer, which in general is very up to date with Adobe's latest
   PostScript version. In my opinion, it does a better job of rendering

That is the point, the PS rasterizer is *not* the same as the ATM rasterizer.
No doubt it has improved since I last looked.  But unless Adobe has recently 
ported the ATM rasterizer into their PS interpreters the two *are* different.

   fonts than ATM running on the Mac in my office.  

Well that is no surprise!  Macs have only 72 dpi.

   This was also confirmed
   by someone from Adobe (who admittedly may have been a know-nothing sales
   dweeb), who, when questioned about this, told me that the Display PostScript
   architecture was better than ATM.

As you say, a know-nothing sales dweeb.  Ask on comp.fonts.

   (I'm talking here about rendering without anti-aliasing. On our Mac the
   anti-aliased fonts look blurry and grey and are next-to-useless for
   readability, even if they do look `cool' at a glance. In any case, various

Contrary to Windows, where the `font smoothing' (it is not true anti-aliasing
on *any* platforms - that would be too slow) is very helpful.  It means I can 
put a full page up on my screen and still read it.  Without it I don't have
quite enough resolution.

   software on NeXT's DPS does anti-aliased fonts, including a version of
   TeXview, albeit one which I don't have.  In any case, I'm not talking
   about anti-aliased rendering, perhaps this is indeed where the superiority
   that you believe ATM to have lies, and this is how we can have such
   differing views?)

Well, a lot of it is a matter of taste.  And a lot of it depends on what
screen resolution you are working at, and how good your monitor is
and what the phase of the moon is.  But overall my experience is that
ATM does substabtially better than even quality PS rasterizers like
the one in Transverter Pro.

Berthold.