Yateendra Joshi wrote:
>Granted that Georgia was developed specifically
>for screen but since it works very well on paper too,
>it would be helpful to know its "character per pica"
>value, say at 9, 10, 11, and 12 points.
For what it's worth, and after conversion to Type 1 with FontLab 2.5 and
Fontographer 3.5, my 300 d.p.i. printer calculates as follows. The conversion
may well have affected letter sizes.
Characters per pica (Georgia)
[Use a fixed-pitch font.]
Roman Italic Bold Bold Italic
U/lc caps U/lc caps U/lc caps U/lc caps
9 pt. 2.85 1.99 2.78 1.99 2.44 1.76 2.37 1.76
10 pt. 2.57 1.79 2.50 1.79 2.19 1.59 2.14 1.59
11 pt. 2.33 1.63 2.28 1.63 1.99 1.44 1.94 1.44
12 pt. 2.14 1.49 2.09 1.50 1.83 1.32 1.78 1.32
Peter Flynn wrote:
>The Mono factor values from their copyfitting tables were generated
>from a complex formula after doing an extended setting in a
>specially-designed sample text. I have no idea if this text is
>available publically (if so could someone please post it), but we'd
>need to know the formula as well, because what the tables give is the
>width of the _average_ lowercase letter as a decimal of a pica em, and
>the formula provided the weighting which accounted for the variance in
>occurrence of the 26 lc letters.
The formula I used comes from a teacher at Collège Ahuntsic in Montreal,
who said it was what they used in the days of metal type if no other index
was available. The U/lc index is the length of the lowercase alphabet in
points divided by 342, and the Caps index is the length of the uppercase
alphabet divided by 325. (Since I calculated the index on a PostScript
printer, I used PostScript points.) There is no extended setting and no
adjustment for the relative frequency of letters.
I don't know whether this is the formula Adobe uses to calculate copyfitting
indexes (CHARPICA.PDF on the Type On Call 4.1 CD-ROM), but in a few test
cases my results were never more than .01 off Adobe's (and if I run the same
calculation twice I sometimes get a difference of .01).
Editing - Translation - Typography
[log in to unmask]