Preview vs WOFF test

Discuss FontCreator here, please do not post support requests, feature requests, or bug reports!
Post Reply
Psymon
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Preview vs WOFF test

Post by Psymon » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:57 pm

Okay, I don't know if I'm hallucinating here or what, but I swear that sometimes when I look at my font in the preview window (within FC) things will look fine, but then when I do a WOFF test things don't -- and I don't know which one to trust, or if it's just my own eyes that I shouldn't trust.

Here's a simple test sentence with my font, in the preview window...

Jack amazed - preview.jpg
Jack amazed - preview.jpg (57.22 KiB) Viewed 995 times

...and here it is in the WOFF test (middle sentence)...

Jack amazed - WOFF test.jpg
Jack amazed - WOFF test.jpg (65 KiB) Viewed 995 times

The word that really stuck out to me was "dropping." For one thing, I have a feeling my "o" might be just slightly too big (or something), but more than that is the double-"p" (i.e. the "pp" ligature). Is it just me, or does it look like it's rendering ever-so-slightly higher up in the WOFF test than it does in the preview window? They should come out exactly the same, shouldn't they?

Or am I seeing things? :shock:

(PS. Oh, crap, I think my "w" is too big, as you see in "few" in both versions -- I'll have to take a look at that, too.) :roll:

Psymon
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Preview vs WOFF test

Post by Psymon » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:40 pm

Okay, here's another example of something weird going on. In my PS to my initial post, I mentioned that I suddenly noticed that my "w" (as you see in "waxing" and in "few" in the WOFF test) was too big.

So I look at that again a little more closely in FC, and in the preview window it looks just fine (or, at least, a LOT better than it does in the WOFF test)...

Jack amazed - preview 2.jpg
Jack amazed - preview 2.jpg (64.39 KiB) Viewed 983 times

Something funny is definitely going on here, if my "w" is coming out bigger (and my "pp" lig coming up off the baseline more than it should be). At least, I think my "w" might indeed be a teeny bit too big, but it's definitely quite noticeably too big in the WOFF test, and I'm sure that something wacky is going on here, I don't think it's just age-related macular degeneration or something. :roll:

Erwin Denissen
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7394
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002 12:41 am
Location: Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Preview vs WOFF test

Post by Erwin Denissen » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:15 pm

It can be due to a lot of things. Even hinting comes into play in some cases. FontCreator uses its own rasterizer without hinting.
Erwin Denissen
High-Logic
Proven Font Technology

Psymon
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Preview vs WOFF test

Post by Psymon » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:50 pm

Erwin Denissen wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:15 pm
It can be due to a lot of things. Even hinting comes into play in some cases. FontCreator uses its own rasterizer without hinting.
But which do I trust, then, which do I use as a reference for while I'm designing/editing/fixing up my font? In a way, I'm a bit lucky with this particular font because if it's off a little that actually almost looks "normal" (for a hand-made 16th century font), but down the road I do hope to make a more regular-looking text font, and then it certainly will matter more.

MikeW
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 2:51 pm

Re: Preview vs WOFF test

Post by MikeW » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:20 pm

The /p characters are above the baseline and more or less hit a nominal x-height line. So partly due to design. This also makes the bowels of the /p characters smaller than say an /o character and so in part it is an illusion I think.

If I open the font in the gallery and make the OT Designer, the Preview and my browser all use the same point size, I really don't see the issue.

Psymon
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Preview vs WOFF test

Post by Psymon » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:31 pm

MikeW wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:20 pm
If I open the font in the gallery and make the OT Designer, the Preview and my browser all use the same point size, I really don't see the issue.
Interesting. I had done both screenshots in my original post with things set at the same point size, 32 pts, but you got me curious to try it again at a bigger size. So I looked at both at 64 pts, and then I didn't seem to see the issue.

WOFF test - 64 pts.jpg
WOFF test - 64 pts.jpg (56.81 KiB) Viewed 964 times

But then, in the WOFF test, I changed it to 32 points again, and then the issue reappeared! Again that "pp" lig was too high...

WOFF test - 32 pts.jpg
WOFF test - 32 pts.jpg (22.54 KiB) Viewed 964 times

And then I changed it to 36 pts, and then the "pp" lig was visibly too low!

WOFF test - 36 pts.jpg
WOFF test - 36 pts.jpg (25.91 KiB) Viewed 964 times

What the heck??? :shock: I still think that my "o" and "w" might be a touch too big -- but that's a separate issue, of course.

I don't know if this possibly makes a difference, but I'm using Firefox as my browser (on Win7 Pro).

(EDIT: I hadn't really looked at the other characters, but similar issues seem to be happening with other characters, too. Compare, for example, the "g" and the "r" in the word "girls," they both seem to move up/down as well! Or maybe it's the "g" and "i" -- ugh, I'm getting googly-eyed, looking at these...) :roll:

MikeW
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 2:51 pm

Re: Preview vs WOFF test

Post by MikeW » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:42 pm

Me thinks perhaps your browser is adjusting text larger (not 100%). In FF, press ctrl + 0

In any case, I took screen shots in OT Designer, Preview and Vivald (at 100%). I made the backgrounds transparent. I overlaid each screen shot in an image editor. Both OTD and Preview were pixel perfect. Vivaldi's screen shot was pixel perfect with the other two as regards the baselines of each character. The /pp ligature was shifted a tad to the left (about 2 pixels or so) but all other characters were aligned with the other two screen shots. The string I used was "poppy girls."

Psymon
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Preview vs WOFF test

Post by Psymon » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:22 pm

MikeW wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:42 pm
Me thinks perhaps your browser is adjusting text larger (not 100%). In FF, press ctrl + 0
No, that's not it (I did check). ;) If what got you thinking/wondering about that was the last screenshots I posted here, I did noticed that my 32pt and 36pt ones seemed to be the same size, but that's because this forum shrinks images to its maximum width. That confused me, too, at first, until I checked the screencaptures I'd taken to make sure that they were, indeed, different. ;)
In any case, I took screen shots in OT Designer, Preview and Vivald (at 100%). I made the backgrounds transparent. I overlaid each screen shot in an image editor. Both OTD and Preview were pixel perfect. Vivaldi's screen shot was pixel perfect with the other two as regards the baselines of each character. The /pp ligature was shifted a tad to the left (about 2 pixels or so) but all other characters were aligned with the other two screen shots. The string I used was "poppy girls."
That's strange. You did get me wondering if perhaps it's a Firefox issue (beyond the one you mentioned), but I just opened the WOFF test in Internet Explorer and I see the same issue happening.

So strange. I'm not sure what to do about it, but I guess I'm thinking that I could/should just rely on what I see in FC's preview windows when it comes to adjusting things up/down on the baseline, and ignore that issue in the WOFF test, but still use the latter to check my kerning and stuff -- while trying my best to ignore that up/down issue.

The only "good" thing in this instance, with this particular font, is that I'm trying to replicate a font created by a smaller printer from the 16th century, who didn't quite know what the heck he was doing (you should see the roman/italic font he developed! yikes!) and so if things look a little "off" it's not quite such a big deal. BUT, I do hope to make a roman/italic font of my own (if I can ever finish this one!) and then this issue could be much more critical, of course.

As I mentioned elsewhere, in another thread, I created this font here from one that was used in a 1561 text called "The Detestable Wickednesse of Magicall Sciences" -- maybe that's the problem I'm having here? This font is magical -- and wickedly so? It's possessed??? :shock: :twisted:

If that's the case, then kewl... :mrgreen:

Post Reply