Comments on: The Benefits Of OpenType/CFF Over TrueType

By: Chris C

Chris C — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:08:03 +0000

If I am on Windows XP and print to a GDI printer, how are CFF fonts rendered? Are they converted into bitmaps or sent as TT outlines? I am pretty sure that the GDI renderer on the printer understands TT.

What if it is a PCL printer? These are common situations.

By: David Lemon

David Lemon — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:29:12 +0000

In reply to Beat Stamm. Beat knows what he's writing about. To put this into a broader context, one of the primary functional differences between CFF and TrueType is the way each strikes a balance in the "division of labor" between what's handled by the font and what's handled by the rasterizer. Both formats share responsibilities between the font and the rasterizer, but CFF does more in the rasterizer while TrueType does more in the font. This distinction is becoming less meaningful in modern antialiased environments, which use fewer of the rasterization instructions in either format.

By: Beat Stamm

Beat Stamm — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:12:25 +0000

When it comes to hinting, in practice, there is little “intelligence” in most TrueType fonts, either. TT fonts often use their detailed instructions for glorified “pixel-popping” instead of encoding constraint behavior—with commensurate font size increases.

By: Ben Schoen

Ben Schoen — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:37:44 +0000

Open type’s main advantage is only alluded to here with Asian languages. The big advantage is you can fit a zillion accents for different languages, ligatures and alternate letters, a huge plus. Slow adoption, however? If your company has spent thousands of dollars on fonts, you really don’t feel like re-buying them again for something that comes up so seldom. For example, to get a slanted lower case “e” in Avant Garde, once a common request with photolettering, is it worth it to buy the font — at least not until someone asks for it.

By: Miguel Sousa

Miguel Sousa — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 20:48:07 +0000

In reply to Dave Crossland.

Yeah, we may do it eventually. For now, it’s just free for everyone to use it http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/afdko/

By: Dave Crossland

Dave Crossland — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:41:30 +0000

“Adobe’s commitment to open-source, I’m hopeful that support for OpenType/CFF on emerging platforms such as Android will not face the shortcomings of the past.”

This is great to hear – and I hope Adobe’s commitment to open-source will extend to the AFDK eventually 🙂

By: Miguel Sousa

Miguel Sousa — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 03:06:20 +0000

In reply to Nick Sherman. As of today and if you want to cater for the widest on-line audience? Yes definitely. I'm hopeful that things will be more balanced in the future, but I have no illusions that it will take time and many coordinated steps.

By: Nick Sherman

Nick Sherman — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 02:54:28 +0000

In reply to Miguel Sousa. Right, perhaps I should re-phrase: … wouldn’t you agree that the problems with using CFF outweigh the benefits?

By: Miguel Sousa

Miguel Sousa — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:19:04 +0000

In reply to David Berlow. Great! It's good to have you on our side.

By: Miguel Sousa

Miguel Sousa — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:18:20 +0000

In reply to Michael Müller-Hillebrand. I don't know. But I don't see why not since OpenType/CFF is a standards-compliant format just like OpenType/TT is. But you'll need to ask Microsoft.