CMR font
texuser
Is is possible to create the pdf ouput (tex > dvi > ps >pdf) with CMR
font more denser in the resulting pdf output?
Thanks in advance, Raj
Rowland McDonnell
> Hi Experts,
>
> Is is possible to create the pdf ouput (tex > dvi > ps >pdf) with CMR
> font more denser in the resulting pdf output?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Could you try asking again?
If you want a particular fount to look other than the way it does look,
you need to edit the fount. That is non-trivial, and needs specialist
fount designing/manipulating software.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Robin Fairbairns
>Is is possible to create the pdf ouput (tex > dvi > ps >pdf) with CMR
>font more denser in the resulting pdf output?
the way they look is the way they're designed to look. (the
translation process to produce the outline fonts was rather careful on
that point.)
however, if you're willing to go back to using bitmap versions of the
fonts, you can adjust the metafont parameters used when generating
bitmaps. (i did this in the early-ish '90s when our first 600 dpi
laserjet 4 arrived. i could probably find those parameters if
necessary, but i would have thought that at least a 1200dpi bitmap
would be better for your purposes.)
the alternative is to find another font, that isn't so spindly.
remember that the design of cm derives from a c19 design: look at
mid-19th century books and you're often reminded of cm's quirks (the
one that always jumps out at me is lower-case "t").
note that old versions of acrotwaddle will make a mess of displaying
bitmap fonts, however they're generated.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Rowland McDonnell
> Hi Experts,
>
> Is is possible to create the pdf ouput (tex > dvi > ps >pdf) with CMR
> font more denser in the resulting pdf output?
I've had another thought.
Why is it that you want to do what you are asking? - I don't know.
But I'm thinking: maybe you don't like the look of CMR but find it
convenient to use LaTeX - perhaps for reasons do with the maths symbols?
If so:
One way of getting a `denser' appearance on page would be to use a
different fount such as Times (a lot denser) with whatever the currently
recommended package for maths symbols matching Times happens to be -
mathptmx, I think.
\usepackage{mathptmx}
should be all you need to add to your document preamble to get this.
texuser
While using CMR with CTP printing at 2400dpi the text in the printed
material very thin.
Times font is another option, but when called via times and mathptmx
packages, bold math are not supported.
Thanks in advance, Raj
Bob Tennent
> Times font is another option, but when called via times and mathptmx
> packages, bold math are not supported.
There are lots of other options:
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=psfchoice
Bob T.
Guenter Milde
> texuser <texu...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Is is possible to create the pdf ouput (tex > dvi > ps >pdf) with CMR
>>font more denser in the resulting pdf output?
> the way they look is the way they're designed to look. (the
> translation process to produce the outline fonts was rather careful on
> that point.)
There are rumours that they were designed to look heavier, for use with a
matrix dot printer which prints them heavier as specified.
Hence, it would make sense to generate a somewhat heavier Latin Modern
variant for use with laser printers and on-screen viewing.
Günter
Rowland McDonnell
> Thank you very much for your kind reply.
>
> While using CMR with CTP printing at 2400dpi the text in the printed
> material very thin.
I've never been happy with the PS versions of the CM family. And if
you're using the Metafont versions, you need to create bitmaps for the
particular destination printer or it'll come out wrongly (wrong size if
you get the wrong resolution, for example).
> Times font is another option, but when called via times and mathptmx
> packages, bold math are not supported.
It is possible to get round that with various `poor man's bold' dodges.
Alternatively, it seems that bold maths is available via these routes -
<http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=psfchoice>:
AMS fonts
This set of fonts offers adjuncts to the CM set, including two sets
of symbol fonts (msam and msbm) and Euler text fonts. These are not a
self-standing family, but merit discussion here (not least because
several other families mimic the symbol fonts). Freely-available Type 1
versions of the fonts are available on CTAN. The eulervm package permits
use of the Euler maths alphabet in conjunction with text fonts that do
not provide maths alphabets of their own (for instance, Adobe Palatino
or Minion).
mathpazo version 1.003
The Pazo Math fonts are a family of type 1 fonts suitable for
typesetting maths in combination with the Palatino family of text fonts.
Four of the five fonts of the distribution are maths alphabets, in
upright and italic shapes, medium and bold weights; the fifth font
contains a small selection of "blackboard bold" characters (chosen for
their mathematical significance). Support under LaTeX2e is available in
PSNFSS; the fonts are licensed under the GPL, with legalese permitting
the use of the fonts in published documents.
Guenter Milde
> texuser <texu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Times font is another option, but when called via times and mathptmx
>> packages, bold math are not supported.
> It is possible to get round that with various `poor man's bold' dodges.
It is even possible to get round without poor man's bold:
mbtimes
Michel Bovani, ftp://ftp.gutenberg.eu.org/pub/gut/distribs/mbtimes/.
qtxmath
math definitions matching the Times variant Termes from the TeX Gyre
project.
(High quality math alphabets. I made a variant that does not use the
txfonts symbols but can be combined with any package providing matching
symbols as e.g. mbtimes or even mathptmx.)
For a fairly complete overview of TeX fonts with math support, see
http://www.tug.dk/FontCatalogue/mathfonts.html
Günter
Rowland McDonnell
> Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> > texuser <texu...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>Is is possible to create the pdf ouput (tex > dvi > ps >pdf) with CMR
> >>font more denser in the resulting pdf output?
>
> > the way they look is the way they're designed to look. (the
> > translation process to produce the outline fonts was rather careful on
> > that point.)
>
> There are rumours that they were designed to look heavier, for use with a
> matrix dot printer which prints them heavier as specified.
Old-fashioned dot-matrix printers always produce thicker than specified
strokes for any conventional seriffed normal body text size variable
stroke width fount - simply because the pins are bigger than the
narrowest strokes.
If there is any fine tuning to be done to make the result look better,
it is done by tuning the Metafont parameters to create an appropriate
printer mode, *NOT* by modifying the basic fount - except that doesn't
help if you're using a PostScript clone of the Metafont originals.
ISTR Knuth's own writing explaining that the reason for starting the TeX
project was to do something about the bloody awful mess the typesetters
made of his books.
In other words, from the very start, Knuth indicated that his intention
was to produce the highest possible quality founts and the very highest
possible quality typesetting engine for the very highest quality output.
> Hence, it would make sense to generate a somewhat heavier Latin Modern
> variant for use with laser printers and on-screen viewing.
The BaKoMa TrueType versions of the CM series seem to me to be a little
heavier than standard versions, FWIW.
Guenter Milde
> Guenter Milde <mi...@users.berlios.de> wrote:
>> Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>> > texuser <texu...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >>Is is possible to create the pdf ouput (tex > dvi > ps >pdf) with CMR
>> >>font more denser in the resulting pdf output?
>> > the way they look is the way they're designed to look. (the
>> > translation process to produce the outline fonts was rather careful
>> > on that point.)
>> There are rumours that they were designed to look heavier, for use
>> with a matrix dot printer which prints them heavier as specified.
> Old-fashioned dot-matrix printers always produce thicker than specified
> strokes for any conventional seriffed normal body text size variable
> stroke width fount - simply because the pins are bigger than the
> narrowest strokes.
... and inkjets produce thicker strokes because the paper will soak up
the ink (ink smearing).
The saying is, that Knuth took this into account when designing the
original CM Metafont sources, i.e. printed with an inkjet, CM will
look as intended, printed with a laserprinter, it will be too light.
> If there is any fine tuning to be done to make the result look better,
> it is done by tuning the Metafont parameters to create an appropriate
> printer mode, *NOT* by modifying the basic fount - except that doesn't
> help if you're using a PostScript clone of the Metafont originals.
LM was created by a tool that allows such a fine tuning in the
Metafont -> PostScript conversion.
...
>> Hence, it would make sense to generate a somewhat heavier Latin Modern
>> variant for use with laser printers and on-screen viewing.
> The BaKoMa TrueType versions of the CM series seem to me to be a little
> heavier than standard versions, FWIW.
I know they are a bit heavier than LM. I will compare them with CM
bitmaps too.
Günter
Robin Fairbairns
>... and inkjets produce thicker strokes because the paper will soak up
>the ink (ink smearing).
>
>The saying is, that Knuth took this into account when designing the
>original CM Metafont sources, i.e. printed with an inkjet, CM will
>look as intended, printed with a laserprinter, it will be too light.
amazing, since he was designing cm in the late 70s (though that
version he eventually renamed am). the first hp inkjet seems to have
been introduced (rather unsuccessfully) in 1984. that (note, i may
have misread the article) seems to have been a 96dpi model.
your saying sounds to me to have something of the urban, something of
the legend.
>> If there is any fine tuning to be done to make the result look better,
>> it is done by tuning the Metafont parameters to create an appropriate
>> printer mode, *NOT* by modifying the basic fount - except that doesn't
>> help if you're using a PostScript clone of the Metafont originals.
>
>LM was created by a tool that allows such a fine tuning in the
>Metafont -> PostScript conversion.
ain't no postscript involved; the tool uses metapost on (some variant
-- i'm not entirely clear) of the metafont, and the metapost output
(not quite postscript, but closely based on it) is then munged into
type 1 format (also not quite postscript...).
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> > Guenter Milde <mi...@users.berlios.de> wrote:
> >> Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> >> > texuser <texu...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >>Is is possible to create the pdf ouput (tex > dvi > ps >pdf) with CMR
> >> >>font more denser in the resulting pdf output?
>
> >> > the way they look is the way they're designed to look. (the
> >> > translation process to produce the outline fonts was rather careful
> >> > on that point.)
>
> >> There are rumours that they were designed to look heavier, for use
> >> with a matrix dot printer which prints them heavier as specified.
>
> > Old-fashioned dot-matrix printers always produce thicker than specified
> > strokes for any conventional seriffed normal body text size variable
> > stroke width fount - simply because the pins are bigger than the
> > narrowest strokes.
>
> ... and inkjets produce thicker strokes because the paper will soak up
> the ink (ink smearing).
Yes indeed.
> The saying is, that Knuth took this into account when designing the
> original CM Metafont sources, i.e. printed with an inkjet, CM will
> look as intended, printed with a laserprinter, it will be too light.
That is not a saying I have met before. What I've read in Knuth's
writing - and what I have used in real life - is that Knuth designed the
Computer Modern family with a large set of parameters which can be
tweaked so that CMR will look as intended on *ANY* printer, provided
that the Metafont mode (i.e., the variable parameters) is set
appropriately and bitmaps are generated for each printer using the right
mode.
Re-stated:
So CM will look as intended on *ANY* printer, provided that the Metafont
mode is set correctly and fresh bitmaps are generated using the right
mode for each printer you wish to use.
Re-stated:
With the right Metafont mode, CMR will appear to have the same weight
printed on a 1200dpi laser printer or a 144 dpi inkjet - but using
different bitmaps generated using a different Metafont mode in each
case.
> > If there is any fine tuning to be done to make the result look better,
> > it is done by tuning the Metafont parameters to create an appropriate
> > printer mode, *NOT* by modifying the basic fount - except that doesn't
> > help if you're using a PostScript clone of the Metafont originals.
>
> LM was created by a tool that allows such a fine tuning in the
> Metafont -> PostScript conversion.
PK files are derived from the CM Metafont sources in a fashion that
permits such fine tuning for every different printer you wish to use
The LM family was created using a compromise `fine tuning' that does not
match any given printer ideally, I would execpt. You are not limited in
that way when working with the Metafont sources directly.
> >> Hence, it would make sense to generate a somewhat heavier Latin Modern
> >> variant for use with laser printers and on-screen viewing.
>
> > The BaKoMa TrueType versions of the CM series seem to me to be a little
> > heavier than standard versions, FWIW.
>
> I know they are a bit heavier than LM. I will compare them with CM
> bitmaps too.
To make that comparison valid, you need to compare them with CM bitmaps
created with different Metafont modes. Try a Metafont mode for a 144dpi
dot matrix (Apple ImageWriter II, for example), or a 300 dpi inkjet, or
a 1200dpi laser printer.
You will get different bitmaps in all cases. AIUI, it is practical to
set up modern versions of TeX to store PK files for multiple printers,
selecting the right set of PK files based on user settings. I've not
been able to work out how to do anything like that in recent years - I
could do it with OzTeX, back in the old days, but modern versions of TeX
aren't at all user-friendly.
Robin Fairbairns
>Guenter Milde <mi...@users.berlios.de> wrote:
>> The saying is, that Knuth took this into account when designing the
>> original CM Metafont sources, i.e. printed with an inkjet, CM will
>> look as intended, printed with a laserprinter, it will be too light.
>
>That is not a saying I have met before. What I've read in Knuth's
>writing - and what I have used in real life - is that Knuth designed the
>Computer Modern family with a large set of parameters which can be
>tweaked so that CMR will look as intended on *ANY* printer, provided
>that the Metafont mode (i.e., the variable parameters) is set
>appropriately and bitmaps are generated for each printer using the right
>mode.
>
>Re-stated:
>
>So CM will look as intended on *ANY* printer, provided that the Metafont
>mode is set correctly and fresh bitmaps are generated using the right
>mode for each printer you wish to use.
>
>Re-stated:
>
>With the right Metafont mode, CMR will appear to have the same weight
>printed on a 1200dpi laser printer or a 144 dpi inkjet - but using
>different bitmaps generated using a different Metafont mode in each
this can't possibly be the case, unless the design generates weights
in multiples of 1/144 of an inch, which is hardly likely. (and if
that's the case, the 1200 dpi printer's weights can easily be
different, since 1200 is not an integer multiple of 144.)
the outline fonts are designed to produce the "right" weight. when
that weight is scaled, and passed to the printer's rasteriser (whose
parameters have been designed as part of the development process for
the printer), it ought not to vary much (perceptually) from what the
metafont parameters say. note that the lm fonts are, to first order,
produced by running knuth's metafont through metapost; if that doesn't
produce the same weight in the lm fonts, i don't know what will.
as a side note, when my department got its first laserjet 4 (600 dpi
nominal) printer, we spent some time adjusting the advertised metafont
parameters for the printer, to make them fit the expectations of our
pre-existing canon cx-based (300 dpi) printers. i don't imagine this
was particularly clever, since it was changing parameters supplied by
people who probably knew better than us what ought to happen; however,
it got us more satisfactory results (to our eyes, aided by nothing
more than hand lenses).
unfortunately, back then, outline cm fonts were only available for
loadsamoney, and were therefore not to a rather small university
department, so i can't say how our twiddling worked by comparison with
the best available autotracing.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge