Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adobe Open-Sources CFF Rasterizer For FreeType

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Ah yes, I was under the misconception that .otf font files were using the CFF format, I was wrong. So these CFF format fonts are mainly professional fonts used in print ? Also why provide .otf format fonts if they contain nothing but an embedded truetype font, why not simply provide a .ttf?
    OpenType in general – no matter if the internal glyph format is TrueType or CFF – supports very advanced typography features. Just look at the pictures: http://www.linuxlibertine.org/index.php?id=87&L=1

    OpenType is totally awesome! Even if a file has the .ttf file extension, I don't think any font editor even saves in the traditional Microsoft TrueType format any longer by default because even if end-user software may not support all OpenType features, basic OpenType compatibility is standard since 10 or more years (I think it was introduced in Windows 2000).

    And yes, people say that CFF has better rendering in print and TTF has better rendering on screen. Frankly I never noticed a difference under either Windows or OSX but maybe I wasn't looking hard enough…

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
      I took a look at the Linux Libertine font, looking at the sizes for the fonts, the ttf fonts take 7.9mb, where the otf fonts take 5.2mb, so if nothing else the otf font format is more efficient at storing truetype font information.
      According to the website both the .ttf files and the .otf files are OpenType but the .otf files contain CFF glyphs as opposed to the .ttf files which are OpenType files with TrueType glyphs.

      I don't have the Linux Libertine fonts installed to open them in a hex editor to check myself and I'm on too slow internet 'till the evening in order to download the font.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
        According to the website both the .ttf files and the .otf files are OpenType but the .otf files contain CFF glyphs as opposed to the .ttf files which are OpenType files with TrueType glyphs.
        Ah, so while I was generally wrong ( not all .otf files contain CFF), in this particular instance it seems I was actually right, the Libertine .otf fonts do contain CFF glyphs and *should* render nicer when freetype gets the CFF rasterizer. See, you didn't have to be so mean to me

        Anyway, knowing that the .otf font uses CFF rather than truetype hinting explains why the Libertine ttf and otf rendered differently, I wonder how freetype currently handles CFF, autohinter?

        Comment


        • #19
          FreeType had its own CFF rasterizer, but Werner welcomed with open arms this release and has it already to go for FreeType 2.4.12 for general consumption.

          For now, they are just testing it amongst the devs to flush out any kerning issues and other spacing issues for fonts.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
            Intersting observation. I spend a lot of time writing [fiction and technical] and read constantly. I'm not running into many well published TrueType Font works.

            Of course, in a Display Postscript world of NeXT I was spoiled by the quality of display output. Tradeoffs were then made with OS X due to changing the Display engine to Display PDF and how the world became obsessed with the Web and thus cheap TrueType fonts. Yet I imagine a lot of industries will be thrilled to have quality output in the likes of Linux/FreeBSD and not be beholden to either OS X or Windows.

            Fonts are far better quality in OS X, though Freetype is an excellent engine. I'm sure all the crap they've been going through working around legal issues with CFF/TrueType patents is a big sigh of relief. Application developers will be thrilled.

            We will soon once again come into another Internet lull period.
            Assuming http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/...-truetype.html is correct, it seems as if ttf is actually the more capable format, but that cff is easier to implement on the font designer's side.
            Also, I think pdf is, more or less, a superset of ps so apple's display server shouldn't necessarily be worse off simply b/c of that change, IIUC.
            Lastly, my understanding of the way osx handles fonts is that they let they leave the hardwork to the fonts themselves (which seems like the ttf methodology), so the fonts can end up hanging themselves if the font package is poor.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by liam View Post
              Assuming http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/...-truetype.html is correct, it seems as if ttf is actually the more capable format, but that cff is easier to implement on the font designer's side.
              Also, I think pdf is, more or less, a superset of ps so apple's display server shouldn't necessarily be worse off simply b/c of that change, IIUC.
              Lastly, my understanding of the way osx handles fonts is that they let they leave the hardwork to the fonts themselves (which seems like the ttf methodology), so the fonts can end up hanging themselves if the font package is poor.
              This is entirely wrong. Maybe read this http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2012...ont-rendering/

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
                This is entirely wrong. Maybe read this http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2012...ont-rendering/
                A very quick read of that says nothing that contradicts what was said in that adobe link, nor what I said.
                Perhaps you could point out exact areas of disagreement?
                Last edited by liam; 05-04-2013, 04:55 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X