True complementary italics

True complementary italics

Post by Gallaghe » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:40:47



So, am I right in that even if I have "Arial Italic" font (for example) in
my Fonts folder, when I italicize using "I" from the Control Palette, it is
not really italic?

So...if "Arial Italic" is in my Fonts folder, why doesn't it show up on my
Font menus?

What about if I am defining a style (which I am about to use in a 125 page
document)?

Thanks!

 
 
 

True complementary italics

Post by Dick Marguli » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 06:21:48


You're not right.

If PageMaker finds a properly configured font family (that is, the
internal names in the fonts are correct, not something you can always
assume, but pretty safe with Arial), it does not show you all four fonts
in the menu, but it does use the correct font.

If it does not find the font you are invoking (with the I or B or I+B),
it will fake it by applying a transformation to the normal (roman) font.
I use a font that comes in a light, light italic, medium, and medium
italic. PageMaker can manage the italics all right (using the proper
font), but if I carelessly use the Bold transformation instead of
manually selecting the medium font, I get burned.

This is a sore point with service bureaus that have to deal with files
sent by people who are ignorant of all this. InDesign, Illustrator, and
many other professional programs will not fake anything. So if you have
any doubt, it is best to set up a sample page and send the file to your
printer to ensure that the fonts are as expected. Or you could open up
the PostScript file and verify it for yourself.

HTH,

Dick


> So, am I right in that even if I have "Arial Italic" font (for example) in
> my Fonts folder, when I italicize using "I" from the Control Palette, it is
> not really italic?

> So...if "Arial Italic" is in my Fonts folder, why doesn't it show up on my
> Font menus?

> What about if I am defining a style (which I am about to use in a 125 page
> document)?

> Thanks!


 
 
 

True complementary italics

Post by Paul Harri » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:31:52




Quote:> This is a sore point with service bureaus that have to deal with files
> sent by people who are ignorant of all this. InDesign, Illustrator, and
> many other professional programs will not fake anything. So if you have
> any doubt, it is best to set up a sample page and send the file to your
> printer to ensure that the fonts are as expected. Or you could open up
> the PostScript file and verify it for yourself.

Hi*:

Can you please tell me why I can print a "faked" italic on my desktop
Postscript laser printer, yet a service bureau would have a problem
running it through the RIP?

I'm not a fan of using faked italics, small caps, etc, both from a
typographic purist viewpoint, and as well anticipating problems of
high-res output.

I now normally use InDesign for page layout, which - as you mention -
does not allow this behaviour. Still, I remember, when using Pagemaker
a lot, sometimes I would receive something from a client with a
knock-off unknown font, with requests to clean it up, do this and that,
and get it to the printer tomorrow. I would often have to use the fake
italic, cross my fingers, and pray for good results. Normally, no
problems, but not always.

Thanks.

Paul Harris

 
 
 

True complementary italics

Post by Dick Marguli » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:27:28





>>This is a sore point with service bureaus that have to deal with files
>>sent by people who are ignorant of all this. InDesign, Illustrator, and
>>many other professional programs will not fake anything. So if you have
>>any doubt, it is best to set up a sample page and send the file to your
>>printer to ensure that the fonts are as expected. Or you could open up
>>the PostScript file and verify it for yourself.

> Hi*:

> Can you please tell me why I can print a "faked" italic on my desktop
> Postscript laser printer, yet a service bureau would have a problem
> running it through the RIP?

> I'm not a fan of using faked italics, small caps, etc, both from a
> typographic purist viewpoint, and as well anticipating problems of
> high-res output.

> I now normally use InDesign for page layout, which - as you mention -
> does not allow this behaviour. Still, I remember, when using Pagemaker
> a lot, sometimes I would receive something from a client with a
> knock-off unknown font, with requests to clean it up, do this and that,
> and get it to the printer tomorrow. I would often have to use the fake
> italic, cross my fingers, and pray for good results. Normally, no
> problems, but not always.

> Thanks.

> Paul Harris

Paul,

Different strokes for different imagesetters, I guess. I don't know if
the functional design of the RIP code is based on
we-won't-lower-ourselves thinking or we-never-thought-of-that thinking
or Macs-don't-have-that-function thinking, although I suspect it's the
last. (You know--on a Mac you can do faux outline type but on a Wintel
machine you can't; maybe this is just the reverse situation.)

It's also possible that, historically, service bureaus have gotten
quality complaints after using faux italic and faux bold, in which case
they would not be pounding on the doors of RIP providers to ask for
these functions.

My own experience is that neither works very well in large-format work
(show graphics), and the faux bold doesn't even work very well at a
small scale. The bold is done by rendering the same text string twice,
with a very small offset. You can get awfully blurry *doing that. I
just printed some bat mitzvah invitations for a guy I work with (well,
for his daughter). They wanted the invitation done in a small purple
script, on vellum, and to make it legible, it had to be "bold," which I
didn't have in that face (there aren't too many bold scripts anyway).
Well, they were happy with the job, because it was free; but lemme tell
ya', if I'd been the customer, I would have rejected the job.

Dick

- Show quoted text -

 
 
 

True complementary italics

Post by Jay Chevak » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:21:07


"Dick Margulis"
 The bold is done by rendering the same text string twice,

Quote:> with a very small offset.

Create an eps from pagemaker with faux bold and open it up with illustrator,
it renders the text 5 times with a small offset. The faux italic is just a
skewing of the origional font
Jay
 
 
 

True complementary italics

Post by Neil Goul » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:26:07


Hi,



> > Can you please tell me why I can print a "faked" italic on my desktop
> > Postscript laser printer, yet a service bureau would have a problem
> > running it through the RIP?

> Different strokes for different imagesetters, I guess. I don't know if
> the functional design of the RIP code is based on
> we-won't-lower-ourselves thinking or we-never-thought-of-that thinking
> or Macs-don't-have-that-function thinking, although I suspect it's the
> last. (You know--on a Mac you can do faux outline type but on a Wintel
> machine you can't; maybe this is just the reverse situation.)

Actually, you can do this on a PC, too. This is a PostScript matter, and
any font can be defined as faux-outline by adding it to the PostScript
prologue. In days of DOS/GEM Ventura, there were specific instructions in
the manual describing how to go about this, and I've done it so I know
that it works! It may be possible to have such a capability today, but I'm
afraid that it would be a non-trivial task.

But, to the question at hand, being able to process this at the RIP is
dependent on the RIP's implementation of the PostScript language. In the
past, many RIPs had incomplete implementations of PostScript
interpretation, and thus would *on many possible PS operations,
including font stroke and angle manipulations.

Neil

 
 
 

True complementary italics

Post by Dick Marguli » Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:32:38


Y'know, Jay, I never thought of inspecting it that way. I was just
eyeballing it. Thanks for the clarification. Still looks acceptable in
some circumstances and awful in others, though.

The issue with the italics is not that the transformation is hard to do;
it's that you never know whether the other guy's RIP is going to
recognize the command. So you get unpredictable output, which can be
kinda upsetting when you've spent $30,000 to be at a trade show and the
graphics get delivered the same day you're setting up the booth (a
mistake I made only once).


> "Dick Margulis"
>  The bold is done by rendering the same text string twice,

>>with a very small offset.

> Create an eps from pagemaker with faux bold and open it up with illustrator,
> it renders the text 5 times with a small offset. The faux italic is just a
> skewing of the origional font
> Jay

 
 
 

True complementary italics

Post by Gallaghe » Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:49:07


Thanks, folks for the clarification.

Typographically, I'm a neophyte, so excuse me if my terminology is
incorrect...

The reason I asked about the "family of fonts" is that even though I have
Arial Bold, Arial Italic, etc. on my machine, when I send the finished file
to my printer, he is unhappy with the bold, italics, etc. So this is an RIP
issue?

When I convert my PageMaker file into Postscript, is there a Distiller
setting I should tweak to avoid these problems? I do not just use the Export
feature to create pdf's.

My monitor is not a reliable source for how thing will finally look, so I'm
floundering a bit here!

> Hi,



> > > Can you please tell me why I can print a "faked" italic on my desktop
> > > Postscript laser printer, yet a service bureau would have a problem
> > > running it through the RIP?

> > Different strokes for different imagesetters, I guess. I don't know if
> > the functional design of the RIP code is based on
> > we-won't-lower-ourselves thinking or we-never-thought-of-that thinking
> > or Macs-don't-have-that-function thinking, although I suspect it's the
> > last. (You know--on a Mac you can do faux outline type but on a Wintel
> > machine you can't; maybe this is just the reverse situation.)

> Actually, you can do this on a PC, too. This is a PostScript matter, and
> any font can be defined as faux-outline by adding it to the PostScript
> prologue. In days of DOS/GEM Ventura, there were specific instructions in
> the manual describing how to go about this, and I've done it so I know
> that it works! It may be possible to have such a capability today, but I'm
> afraid that it would be a non-trivial task.

> But, to the question at hand, being able to process this at the RIP is
> dependent on the RIP's implementation of the PostScript language. In the
> past, many RIPs had incomplete implementations of PostScript
> interpretation, and thus would *on many possible PS operations,
> including font stroke and angle manipulations.

> Neil

 
 
 

True complementary italics

Post by Paul Harri » Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:09:41




> But, to the question at hand, being able to process this at the RIP is
> dependent on the RIP's implementation of the PostScript language. In the
> past, many RIPs had incomplete implementations of PostScript
> interpretation, and thus would *on many possible PS operations,
> including font stroke and angle manipulations.

Ah, that makes sense!

Thanks Neil (and* and others).

Paul H

 
 
 

True complementary italics

Post by Marek William » Tue, 24 Jun 2003 04:01:00


On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 06:21:07 -0400, "Jay Chevako"

Quote:>Create an eps from pagemaker with faux bold and open it up with illustrator,
>it renders the text 5 times with a small offset. The faux italic is just a
>skewing of the origional font

A good tipoff that you have faux italic is to look at the lowercase a.
The real italic a looks like a handwriting a, where the faux a will be
a Roman a that has been slanted. To see what I mean cheack out the
Roman and italic a for a font where you know for sure that you have
the real italic version as a separate font.

It doesn't work 100% of the time because there are a handful of real
italic fonts with a lowercase a that actually is the same as the
Roman. But most of the time the lowercase italic a is a dead giveaway.

--
Bogus e-mail address, but I read this newsgroup regularly, so reply here.

 
 
 

1. True complementary italics

I'm thinking of switching over from Pagemaker 6.5 to InDesign 2. One
thing that bugs me about Pagemaker is that the italic created from the
palette or keyboard shortcut is simply a slanted roman, not the true
italic from of the font, and I have yet to find a way to map the true
complementary italic etc. to ^i. Two questions:

1: Other than search & replace, has anyone come up with a fix for this
issue?

2. Is this corrected in InDesign?

Best,

Edward Ripley-Duggan.

2. Arbitrary matrix transform from scale & rotate?

3. complementary italics

4. WANTED: 3D ANIMATION WIZARDS (TO BE) IN HOLLAND

5. How do I find a complementary color

6. is mpeg available?

7. convert to complementary colors?

8. Ray Tracing?

9. complementary colors, how to derive?

10. Is this true, or true crap?

11. Conversion of windows true type to Mac true type

12. Maya FREE for 30 days...(True, true)

13. Harlow Solid Italic Font