#Adobe NFNTs?
16 messages in this thread
So the "solution" (for the time being) could be this(?):
1) Make sure that all of the "Parent" FONDs (usually plain styles) have IDs
under 256;
2) Leave the matching "plain" screen fonts as FONTs;
3) change all of the "other" styles to NFNTs, which allows you to get rid of
their corresponding FOND resource (like "I Times Italic").
This should work until there are more than 128 parents (I count 104 in adobe
fonts alone, not countin g the latest releases). But will Font Harmony have
enough control to compensate for the "odd" families like Stone that have have
two parent FONDs (both plain and semibold access the bold style when "Bold" is
chosen from the Style menu); that is, if I have ALL the 1Stone family in a
single file, can I specify that I want ONLY the Italic variations to be made
into NFNTs, or is the process too automated?
ONe other quick question: is there any problem assigning family IDs BELOW
128 (except for System font IDs), other than the fact thta Apple says not to?
the IDs from 20 to 127 are very appealing territory, since I use none of the
Bitmap fonts in that range.
Thanks for the responses (past & future)…maybe when I get my upgrade I
won't have to ask about what will do what.
-Scott Leyes
Font Harmony is "too automated" — it won't let you select individual styles to
be exempted from merging, except for Condensed and Extended (since those are
not on many Style menus).
If you merge a stone family, you'll end up with two FONDs — plain and Bold, as
Semibold is the emboldment (to coin a term) of plain.
There's no problem with IDs below 128 except for conventions established by
Apple — the Mac, so to speak, doesn't know about the conventions.
Steve,
I believe that there may be a error in the procedure regarding the 'folding' of
complex families together. Pages 79 and 80. In following the procedure, I first
copied the Other styles into the Plain, then the Semi-Bold's into Plain. (After
doing a check/fix of course.) I found the display to be 'funky' when the bold
style was applied to the semi-bold font. It should have used (or become) the
Bold display, instead it was one of those algorythmically generated types. Upon
investigation with ResEdit I discovered that the Bold references in the
Semi-Bold FOND were removed.
On my first pass experiment, I copied the Other styles into the Semi-Bold
family and then copied the entire Semi-Bold file into the Plain with Font/DA
Mover 3.8. It worked!
I used Stone Informal for this, I don't know if the would be the case with
other complex families but I though you should know.
Jim
Here's a rule that might help: I've found that Font/DA Mover will strip out
any FOND references that it thinks are unnecessary…so if you were to copy
stone Semibold into a "new" file using F/DA Mover, it will remove the
references for bold, etc.
Whenever possible, combine fonts from the "bottom" up: put the referenced
fonts into the file of the font doing the referencing. So you would put Bold
into the Semibold file (since Semi references Bold) and then but both into
Plain which references Semibold). Font/DA mover won't alter the FOND of the
font your copying TO, so adding the fonts in the right order is critical. If
you then move ALL of the fonts in a single file TOGETHER, Font/DA Mover won't
strip the references.
In the System I set up for Quicktype, I found myself going back in and
reconstructing alot of FONDs by hand (with ResEdit).
BTW – Rick mentioned there might be some problem w/Suitcase II and the
current setup…I ran the whole thing through several tests (of every font) and
found no glitches (other than the minor ones that existed before) with any of
the apps I tested, including XPress & PageMaker 3.0. This was WITHOUT running
any modifications to the nine suitcase files. When Rick updates his collection
with the newest Adobe fonts soon, I plan to switch a lot of the system to NFNTs
to make room for the additions…not much sense now, since he'll add at least
10 families. I'll probably leave specific spots for any he doesnt buy also,
just in case…
-Scott Leyes
Scott,
I've been reading some of this thread. I noticed you said you're a designer.
What type of work do you do? Are you freelance?
Rick Brenner
You know, I would have never guessed that there was a 'manditory' procedure
that is based on the font you're working on. That is true, isn't it? When it
comes to working with the complex families, how does anybody know what the
proper assembly order should be without first peeking at the association table
of the FONDs?
The problems I have found with Rick's suitcase files are very minor (I think).
They are similar to a major problem I ran into when trying to duplicate what
you have done. I have gone through all of them now also, and in fact there are
no major problems that I can see. There are a few minor ones though, which
affect the display of the 'oblique' faces. They are displayed as Italic
(sharper angle). All of the Stone, Univers 57, FuturaBook, Helvetica,
PrestigeElite and Cheltenham oblique's in the 12pt and 18pt sizes. Palatino,
Times and Futura 10pt bold-oblique's. Orator (jokingly, one of my favorites)
has a severe negative leading problem. Again, all minor with regards to the
screen. I don't have a postscript printer so I cannot tell if this will affect
the printed results. i.e. the right font / the right line length.
Jim
This font business is getting more bizzare by the 15 minute chunks. I don't
really see any correlation in the results I'm getting but here's some more
info;
The correct procedure for reassembling the Univers family is: Plain->Other
Black->Other Other->Light
For Univers Condensed: Plain->Other Other->Light
At this moment I am completely unsure that there is ANY one way to correctly
reassemble a family into a single file. It was only yesterday I heard a rumor
from some Linotronic people about Linotype. Being a ex-QA man I'm beginning to
understand why that rumor would be justified (although no reason was given).
That's all for tonight, time to tighten up my brain. Jim
Rumor? what rumor?
-Scott Leyes
I don't know if it is news or what. I was told that Adobe was making fonts
under a license from Linotype and that Linotype has pulled back this
manufacturing to thier own facilities now. Although no reason was given, I
can't help but wonder why. The Adobe fonts always looked good. Except for
News Gothic at 204 points.
Jim
Linotype has the right to sell the same fonts as Adobe, and also to create and
sell additional "true" PostScript fonts under their own name. This has been
true from the beginning of their agreement with Adobe, and I don't think
there's been any change since. Certainly there hasn't been any dissatisfaction
expressed with Adobe's work by anyone I've heard from.
In the case of Stone, however, there are two "parent" FONDs (as I refer to
them)…"Plain" and "Semibold". Choosing "Bold" from the style menu
for "Plain" gets you Semibold, choosing "bold" from the style menu for
"Semibold" gets you "BOLD". Hence much confusion.
Another problem: Helvetica Light. This FOND refers to Helvetica BLACK, and
should (if I read your system correctly) one Harmonize this family, the Black
variation would dissappear from the menus. BUt most people find it very
confusing to choose Helvetica Light when they need BLACK; this is why I set up
systems to read both.
Of course you can't set up a utility to deal with all of these exceptions
individually, and from what I've seen so far (I got a look at the Harmonzer
Help file) you did a great job. I wonder if a future update might include an
advanced option to specify exceptions? Or is this just giving the public a gun
with which to shoot themselves?
-Scott Leyes
Scott,
I've come to the conclusion that the logic with bold, demi, semi-bold as deemed
b by Adobe is the next 'bolder' face when bold is selected from the style menu.
Aside from the entire stone family the eurostile family is also structured this
way. ie: Plain+Bold=Demi, Demi+Bold=Bold.
I personally would have preferred that Bold meant BOLD and anything else was a
separate family.
Jim
Don't trust Adobe as far as you can throw your Lino when it comes to font
references….there are NO ABSOLUTES!
EXAMPLE 1: for the longest time (in mac terms), Adobe used the term "Heavy"
to classify styles that were bolder than "bold", like Tiffany Heavy & Franklin
Gothic Heavy. But the latest release of Futura goes COMPLETELY against
this…"Heavy" is bolder than "Book", but LIGHTER than "Bold" – and Futura's
Heavy is accessible by choosing "Bold" from the style menu for "Futura",
whereas "Heavy" faces used to be their own separate family (BTW – Futura Book
gets you Futura Bold, and so does Futura LIGHT).
EXAMPLE 2: If your postulate were true (that making a font "bold" gets you
the next weight up), then Univers would be easy…but it's not. Univers 45 +
"bold" = Unvers 65; Univers 55 + "bold" = Univer 75. Here, the bolding skips a
weight in each step. But in the case of Univer Condensed, BOTH 47 and 57 become
67 when made bold. The Futura Families are even worse, and very different from
Univers.
EXAMPLE 3: Never forget what Adobe did with Helvetica Light & Black…
skipping ALL the intermediate levels in both regular and condensed. from the
looks of their newest groupings, I'd say that the "new" Helvetica families are
similarly confusing, since they've paired Helvetica 25 (ultra light) with
Helvetica 95 (extra black) in the same package.
EXAMPLE 4: The "Eras" families are completely UNlinked (except for "Medium",
which gets you "Bold"). These are six individuals, taking a hefty space in any
font menu. (of course, there's no italics either).
And so it goes….
-Scott Leyes
PS: I've got a list of the current irregular references (thru Eras) if you
want me to E-Mail it (I posted it here a while back, but I'm sure it's scrolled
off).
I still have a copy of the "Getting Other Styles" message (#5542). Again, I
would have never guessed that affects the order of copying fonts to suitcase
files.
From what I understand here, there is NOT any one way to PROPERLY assemble all
of the various families. You mentioned previously that a rule might be 'to
build from the bottom up'. That only helps me when I have two additional pieces
of information: 1) Where the bottom is. 2) Which way is up. From what your
message describes, this could be difficult (inconvenient) to determine.
Bear in mind, I don't claim to be a expert. I just believe in a place for
everything and everything in it's place.
Jim
P.S. Did you really enter all those association table resource numbers
hexadecimally through ResEdit 'Open General'? I would like to manipulate some
(a lot) of the non-Adobe fonts to be compatable with this suitcase set.
"From the bottom up" means from the last referenced fon to the first
(which still doesn't make any sense). Here's an example family:
StonePlain > Italic & Semi & Semi Italic
Italic > Semi Italic
Semi > Semi Italic & Bold & Bold Italic
Semi Italic > Bold Italic
Bold > Bold Italic
Here, the ">" means "FOND refers to". if you look at "plain" as the
"top", and "BoldItalic" as the "bottom", then you would combine families
(with Font/DA Mover) as follows:
BoldItalic -> Bold -> SemiItalic -> Semi -> Italic -> Plain
Since the Italics are combined with other files already, however, the
actual order becomes:
StoneOther -> StoneSemi -> StonePlain,
since this best approximates the "bottom to top" order. You still may
lose the "Italic" references, but this won't matter if you convert to NFNTs
(those references become unnecessary…NFNTs don't themselves refer to
anything). Italics are the "least" important of any family, since they are
ALWAYS referred to by some other FOND (so far).
In the example family above, "StonePlain" is the parent FOND, with
"Semi" & "Bold" also parents; since this is confusing, my preference is to
leave all three as FONTs, and convert the rest to NFNTs (invisible in
menus). True, you would need only two FONDs (Plain and -either- Semi or
Bold), but I feel it better to include more if there might be confusion.
For example, in the case of Stone, leaving Plain & Bold in menus means
accessing Semi thru "bold" in the Style menu; but if I were a Mac novice, I
would think StonePlain made "bold" would be BOLD…the Semi that appears on
screen (and printout) would be confusing.
BTW – yes, I did enter a great many of the altered references (about half
of the Adobe families) myself using ResEdit, but not Hexadecimally – I used
the standard FONT & FOND templates, so all numbers were entered via keypad.
I have several ECL fles that automate the determination of "correct" ID
numbers for FONT resources, so I didn't have to use a calculator all the
time.
Scott,
Here's some info and a question for ya.
Over in MACPRO in DL12 (Fonts) there is a freeware utility called N-FONT that
will convert a single family to a NFNT. Before I got Font Harmony, I tried it
and ran into problems with the 12pt and 18pt in all (that I tried) families.
After doing a check/fix on some virgins, I find this utility has good
possiblities. By modifying the STR resources of this utiltiy you can control
which FONTs become NFNTs during the conversion. A problem which is not related
to 'improper' FONDs was the duplication of NFNT resource ID numbers in the long
run when working with individual family suitcases.
The question: If all my fonts where repaired by running the 'Check/Fix' of Font
Harmony utility, then conversion with N-FONT, and then insure that no family ID
numbers exceed 511, would I have any problems with PageMaker or any other
programs which handles fonts the same?
fiddling in the meantime…. Jim