CG Omega v Zapf Humanist 601 v Optima
Caecilius
now, and I'm looking for a better alternative for both on screen and HP
laser printer.
From reading and searching this group, I understand that CG Omega is
actually a copy of Hermann Zapf's Optima, so this is one alternative. I
also understand that Zapf Humanist 601 is another alternative.
I have two questions that I hope someone can help me with:
1. Are there differences in quality between different fonts with the same
name?
I'm thinking mainly of things like hinting and kerning here. I notice that
there are a few different sources for a font with the same name, and the
font files are not identical.
For example, the TrueType CG Omega that I currently use has version
"Version 1.3 (Hewlett-Packard)", is dated 4th March 1998 and "contains 385
glyphs and no standard kern pairs". I think this came from an HP printer
software disk. I have found another version on a free fonts website that
has version "Version 1.3 (ElseWare)", is dated 11th January 1995 and
"contains 406 glyphs and no standard kern pairs".
My worry is that with multiple fonts with the same name, and no obvious
place to go to to check the font's ancestry and quality, how do I know
which is the "best" font, and which may be a cheap copy (OK, in the case of
CG Omega perhaps they are all cheap copies, but you get my point).
Is it a case of always going to the owner of the font to be sure of good
quality? So Adobe for Optima and Bitstream for Zapf Humanist?
Coming from a software background, I'm a bit surprised that there is not
better version control for fonts, and digital signatures to prove that they
have not been altered.
2. Licencing
Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but here's my understanding:
It seems that CG Omega is essentially free as it's available for download
from HP and is available on several free font websites. I also cannot find
anywhere to buy it from.
Optima seems to be only available as a paid-for font. No free downloads
apart from obviously dogey sources which don't look legal to me.
Zapf Humanist seems to be between the two. It is available paid-for from
places like MyFonts, but it's also offered at free font websites and is
included on many font collection CDs.
If I buy a copy of Zapf Humanist or Optima from somewhere like MyFonts,
does my money go to the right people (I'd like to think that Hermann Zapf
would get some of it), or am I just paying a middle-man?
If I download Zapf Humanist from a free fonts website, am I committing
piracy, or just getting a bad-quality knockoff font (or maybe both)?
No one I've spoken to seems to care much about font licensing. However as
my reports are part of a chargable service I want to make sure I stay on
the right side of the law.
Character
> I've been using CG Omega to write my reports in MS Word for about ten years
> now, and I'm looking for a better alternative for both on screen and HP
> laser printer.
"Better" is very subjective. What is it that you want to improve?
> From reading and searching this group, I understand that CG Omega is
> actually a copy of Hermann Zapf's Optima, so this is one alternative.
It's not "a copy". If it was, it would be identical and there'd be no
reason to pick one over the other. What it is is another interpretation.
> I also understand that Zapf Humanist 601 is another alternative.
>
> I have two questions that I hope someone can help me with:
>
> 1. Are there differences in quality between different fonts with the same
> name?
There can be. Or each might be better in some respects, poorer in others.
> I'm thinking mainly of things like hinting and kerning here. I notice that
> there are a few different sources for a font with the same name, and the
> font files are not identical.
And even fonts from the same foundry may evolve over time, so you get
different versions of the same font from the same source. Later
versions usually are improvements, but like anything else, changes can
introduce negative effects as well. For instance, line flow may not
match if older documents use the newer version.
> For example, the TrueType CG Omega that I currently use has version
> "Version 1.3 (Hewlett-Packard)", is dated 4th March 1998 and "contains 385
> glyphs and no standard kern pairs". I think this came from an HP printer
> software disk. I have found another version on a free fonts website that
> has version "Version 1.3 (ElseWare)", is dated 11th January 1995 and
> "contains 406 glyphs and no standard kern pairs".
As corporations merge and separate and acquire and de-acquire,
cross-license and un-cross, their fonts undergo rebranding. Sometimes
it's just a change in the copyright line, sometimes other changes are
introduced. For example: Elseware was an early computer font developer
and innovator, responsible for the Panose identification system, among
other things. HP purchased them and the company no longer exists. HP
also distributed many fonts under license from Miles, Inc., which
later acquired Agfa/Monotype. This is one of the simpler scenarios to
be found!
Regarding the properties extension that says "contains x glyphs and y
kern pairs", this is essentially valueless information. Many fonts
have empty glyphs, which get counted just the same, and the number of
kern pairs has nothing to do with how GOOD the kerning is, whether it
was carefully done manually or automatically, etc.
> My worry is that with multiple fonts with the same name, and no obvious
> place to go to to check the font's ancestry and quality, how do I know
> which is the "best" font,
There is no "best". Moreover, you can have different fonts with the
same name, and the same font under different names.
> and which may be a cheap copy (OK, in the case of
> CG Omega perhaps they are all cheap copies, but you get my point).
And some "cheap copies" are superior to expensive versions.
> Is it a case of always going to the owner of the font to be sure of good
> quality?
No. What's "the owner"? The original designer (often long-dead)? The
patent owner for patented fonts? The owner of the copyright for a font
name? There are a number of ITC designs, for example, which ITC
doesn't offer, but different implementations are offered by Adobe,
Linotype, and others.
> So Adobe for Optima and Bitstream for Zapf Humanist?
Not particularly. Optima was designed by Herman Zapf, and implemented
by Linotype and Berthold as well as by Adobe and others. Zapf Humanist
601 is Bitstream's implementation.
> Coming from a software background, I'm a bit surprised that there is not
> better version control for fonts, and digital signatures to prove that they
> have not been altered.
Yes, fonts CAN have digital signatures.
>
> 2. Licencing
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but here's my understanding:
>
> It seems that CG Omega is essentially free as it's available for download
> from HP and is available on several free font websites. I also cannot find
> anywhere to buy it from.
Absolutely not. Elseware's CG Omega is essentially "abandonware", but
technically it is "owned" by Hewlett Packard. You CAN buy it by buying
an appropriate older HP Printer.
FREE does NOT mean unrestricted. You may be constrained from
duplicating, re-distributing, and even from certain uses. The fact
that a font is included with a paid package does NOT make the font
free, any more than your operating system is free because it came with
your computer, or than the tires that came with your automobile.
> Optima seems to be only available as a paid-for font. No free downloads
> apart from obviously dogey sources which don't look legal to me.
>
> Zapf Humanist seems to be between the two. It is available paid-for from
> places like MyFonts, but it's also offered at free font websites and is
> included on many font collection CDs.
> If I buy a copy of Zapf Humanist or Optima from somewhere like MyFonts,
> does my money go to the right people (I'd like to think that Hermann Zapf
> would get some of it), or am I just paying a middle-man?
You never know. If you buy an Adobe font from MyFonts, of course
you're paying a middle-man - but the cost might be less than from
Adobe. It all depends on what contracts, licence agreements, etc. have
been negotiated. Same goes for the designers.
> If I download Zapf Humanist from a free fonts website, am I committing
> piracy, or just getting a bad-quality knockoff font (or maybe both)?
Maybe both and maybe neither. If I create and post a font named Zapf
Humanist, waive copyright protection, and put it into the public
domain, I might be violating BT's (Bitstream's) copyright on the NAME
(if they have it), but you would be free to download it legally. It
might be better than BT's [unlikely] or could be something entirely
different. If you're downloading the BT version, then yes, it is piracy.
> No one I've spoken to seems to care much about font licensing. However as
> my reports are part of a chargeable service I want to make sure I stay on
> the right side of the law.
You're not speaking to the right people. EVERY font you purchase has
an associated license agreement. These agreements vary widely among
foundries and suppliers, and can very within a supplier. Read them
carefully. They're usually available on the companies' websites.
- Character
David E. Ross
I have both CG Omega (HP, 1998, v.1.3) and Zapf Humanist 601 BT
(Bitstream, 1993, v.1.52) on my PC but not "installed". Omega has
Roman, Italic, Roman bold, and Italic bold. Humanist has only Roman.
While the Roman versions look almost the same, there are subtle
differences in weight and spacing. There are also significant
differences in the characters not in the A-Z, a-z, and 0-9 sequences.
The Omega font includes a glyph for the euro currancy while the Humanist
does not. If I were to install one, it would be the Omega.
--
David Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>
Have you been using Netscape and now feel abandoned by AOL?
Then use SeaMonkey. Go to <http://www.seamonkey-project.org/>.
Character
Omega has
> Roman, Italic, Roman bold, and Italic bold. Humanist has only Roman.
>
Regular
Bold
Bold Italic
Demi
Demi Italic
Ultra
Ultra Italic
They've been around a long time, too - some of mine came with
Micrografx, which I haven't updated since Corel bought them about ten
years ago.
> While the Roman versions look almost the same, there are subtle
> differences in weight and spacing. There are also significant
> differences in the characters not in the A-Z, a-z, and 0-9 sequences.
> The Omega font includes a glyph for the euro currancy while the Humanist
> does not. If I were to install one, it would be the Omega.
That depends on WHICH CG Omega you're talking about. I just downloaded
a 1995 ŠElseware one that has many more glyphs than any of BT's, but
no Euro symbol. A 1998 version with an HP copyright notice does have
it, and a 1992 version with the Miles Š crashed FontLab.
- Character
zare
wrote:
>I've been using CG Omega to write my reports in MS Word for about ten years
>now, and I'm looking for a better alternative for both on screen and HP
>laser printer.
>
Hi all!
Maybe it is offtopic, but I am curious about CG Omega font. In fact,
was it originally Casady & Greene font design?
TIA, Zare
Andreas Höfeld
No, Hermann Zapf design I'm afraid, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optima
Did you read this thread before posting?
Character
it never got posted ...
zare wrote:
No. The CG has no more to do with Casady & Greene than it does with
Curious George. As Cęcilius said, the DESIGN is by Herman Zapf, and
was originally called Optima. THe CG prefix is registered to Agfa and
stands for Compugraphic.
Hewlett-Packard supplied a number of fonts with their early Laser
Printers, with matching printer-resident and pc-resident versions.
These included CG Omega and CG Times, both produced by Elseware. There
was some relationship between Miles Inc. and Elseware, and Agfa became
a subsidiary of Miles, so ...
There's a discussion of the incestuous cannabilistic world of fonts,
as it applies to HP, Miles, Agfa, Monotype, et al here:
- Character
zare
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Maybe it is offtopic, but I am curious about CG Omega font. In fact,
>> was it originally Casady & Greene font design?
>
>No, Hermann Zapf design I'm afraid, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optima
>
>Did you read this thread before posting?
Hi,
Yes, I read this thread. Is it prohibited to ask such question?
Zare
zare
Hi,
>
>No. The CG has no more to do with Casady & Greene than it does with
>Curious George. As Cęcilius said, the DESIGN is by Herman Zapf, and
>was originally called Optima. THe CG prefix is registered to Agfa and
>stands for Compugraphic.
Yes, I read somewhere that Omega font was designed by Herman Zapf and
one Japanese designer.
I was just curious is that font was marketed by Casady & Greene.
Is it permitted to be curious?
Zare
Andreas Höfeld
> Hi,
>> No. The CG has no more to do with Casady & Greene than it does with
>> stands for Compugraphic.
>
> Yes, I read somewhere that Omega font was designed by Herman Zapf and
> one Japanese designer.
>
> I was just curious is that font was marketed by Casady & Greene.
if?
You wrote "design" - not "marketed".
> Is it permitted to be curious?
It is permitted to understand that an answer has already been given
before you ask.