Return-Path: <vvv@vsu.ru>
Received: from [62.76.169.38] (HELO video)
  by vsu.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5b3)
  with ESMTP id 3804526; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:32:06 +0400
To: CyrTeX-en@vsu.ru, CyrTeX-ru@vsu.ru
Subject: cm-super fonts
From: Vladimir Volovich <vvv@vsu.ru>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:32:18 +0400
Message-ID: <eyiteop5ml.fsf@vsu.ru>
Lines: 38
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.0.103
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi,

i'm about to release the cm-super package which contains type1 fonts
which cover entire EC/TC and LH fonts (fonts were created with
textrace/autotrace). Each font contains ALL glyphs from all encodings:
T1, TS1, T2A, T2B, T2C, X2 (582 glyphs per font), and coupd be
reencoded to any of these encodings using standard dvips or pdftex
facilities.

before putting all fonts to ftp (whicvh may happen tomorrow evening),
i'd like you to look at one of these fonts:
sfrm1000.pfb which contains glyphs from:
  ecrm1000, tcrm1000, larm1000, lbrm1000, lcrm1000, rxrm1000.

i've put that font to
ftp://ftp.vsu.ru/pub/tex/font-packs/cm-super/

There you will find 3 files:

sfrm1000.pfb      -- traced font
sfrm1000-opt.pfb  -- optimized using fontlab (but not hinted)
sfrm1000-hint.pfb -- optimized and auto-hinted using fontlab

while experimenting with fontlab's optimisation and auto-hinting
previously, i found that carelessness approach could lead toloss of
quality of the original font.

so i tried to use the most precise optimisation, and hope that
optimised and hinted fonts are indeed better than original font.

(and optimized fonts are much smaller than the original traced font)

So i request your comments on the quality of the 3 font files above.
Please look at glyphs (e.g. using ghostscript's prfont.ps) at high
resolution and if you'll notice some bugs, please let me know.

Best,
v.