The documents are real. Why would you think they weren't? I never said they weren't.
Posted on 09/10/2004 5:23:19 PM PDT by Thanatos
Times (New) Roman and its part in the Development of Scalable Font Technology
By Charles Bigelow
Charles Bigelow posted this article to the Usenet newsgroup "comp.fonts" in May 1994 in response to the question: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman? I am grateful to Prof. Bigelow for his permission to publish the article. I have taken the liberty of retitling it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.fonts
Subject: Re: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman?
From: Charles Bigelow
Date: 5 May 1994
"Times Roman" is the name used by Linotype, and the name they registered as a trademark for the design in the U.S. "Times New Roman" was and still is the name used by The Monotype Corporation. The face was developed by The Times newspaper for its own use, under the design direction of Stanley Morison. Originally cut by the Monotype Corp. in England, the design was also licensed to Linotype, because The Times used Linotype equipment for much of its actual production. The story of "The Times New Roman" can be found in Stanley Morison's A Tally of Types, published by Cambridge University Press, with additional, though not quite the same, versions in Nicolas Barker's biography of Stanley Morison, and in James Moran's biography of SM. (There should be an apostrophe in that name, "Times' Roman", I suppose, though no-one uses it.)
During WWII, the American Linotype company, in a generous spirit of Allied camaraderie, applied for registration of the trademark name "Times Roman" as its own, not Monotype's or The Times', and received the registration in 1945.
In the 1980's, all this was revisited when some entrepreneurs, desirous of gaining the rights to use the name, applied to Rupert Murdoch, who owned The Times; separately, a legal action was also initiated to clarify the right of Monotype to use the name in the U.S., despite Linotype's registration.
The outcome of all of the legal maneuverings is that Linotype and its licensees like Adobe and Apple continue to use the name "Times Roman", while Monotype and its licensees like Microsoft use the name "Times New Roman".
During the decades of transatlantic "sharing" of the Times designs, and the transfer of the faces from metal to photo to digital, various differences developed between the versions marketed by Linotype and Monotype. Especially these became evident when Adobe released the PostScript version, for various reasons having to do with how Adobe produced the original PostScript implementations of Times. The width metrics were different, as well as various proportions and details.
In the late 1980's, Monotype redrew its Times New Roman to make it fit exactly the proportions and metrics of the Adobe-Linotype version of Times Roman. Monotype claimed that its new version was better than the Adobe-Linotype version, because of smoother curves, better detailing, and generally greater sensitivity to the original designs done for The Times and Monotype by Victor Lardent, who worked under the direction of Stanley Morison. During the same period, Adobe upgraded its version of Times, using digital masters from Linotype, which of course claimed that it had a superior version, so there was a kind of competition to see who had the most refined, sensitive, original, genuine, bona-fide, artistically and typographically correct version. Many, perhaps most, users didn't notice and didn't care about these subtle distinctions, many of which were invisible at 10 pt at 300 dpi (which is an em of 42 pixels, a stem of three pixels, a serif of 1 pixel, and so on).
When Microsoft produced its version of Times New Roman, licensed from Monotype, in TrueType format, and when Apple produced its version of Times Roman, licensed from Linotype, in TrueType format, the subtle competition took on a new aspect, because both Microsoft and Apple expended a great deal of time and effort to make the TrueType versions as good as, or better than, the PostScript version. During the same period, Adobe released ATM along with upgraded versions of its core set of fonts, for improved rasterization on screen. Also, firms like Imagen, now part of QMS, and Sun developed rival font scaling technologies, and labored to make sure that their renderings of Times, licensed from Linotype in both cases, were equal to those of their competitors. Hence, the perceived quality of the Times design became a litmus for the quality of several font formats. Never before, and probably never again, would the precise placement of pixels in the serifs or 's' curves etc. of Times Roman occupy the attention of so many engineers and computer scientists. It was perhaps the supreme era of the Digital Fontologist.
As for the actual visual differences in the designs, well, like any good academic author, I leave the detection and analysis of those "as an exercise for the reader".
© Charles Bigelow
> We run the risk of this backfiring.
Careful. I think the DNC has a trademark on that
talking point :-)
Anyway, I agree.
Although Rather may be mistaken about the literal
name "Times Roman", the fact is that "Times" style
typefaces have been around a long time, and the
resolution of the "documents" in question is not
high enough to permit saying much more than that
what we see is consistent with the MS default serif
font "Times New Roman".
Occam's Razor is in the lead here. Let's not push
this horse faster than it needs to go.
Clumsy MS Word forgery using Word defaults indicts
these documents. Any historical defense gets very
weird very fast, and there are more problems than
any historical scenario can handle.
The documents are real. Why would you think they weren't? I never said they weren't.
Yeah. "Typeset" by hitting ctrl c, ctrl v, ctrl p, enter.
Perfect! Kudo's!
Hey, Ho, Rather must go!
Rather lied and the mainstream media died!
Again, however, I am curious if the documents can be replicated on WordPerfect or on a Macintosh platform.
that picture is too dark, can you lighten it to make it easier to see?
Well.... notice how they couch it in "unofficial personnel files" - hence they avoid the charge of forging official government documents, only private documents meant to "CYA" . . . Libel law with punitive fines.
I sent this to Drudge. I would suggest bombarding Drudge with this piece of info.
Go in for the kill
bump :D
There's a thread up with a copy of F'n's military BONUS CHECK for "serving" in Vietnam: Sen. Kerry's Bonus (check) From The Vietnam War - Howie Carr
Yeah, but it's been around since the 1930s! (Not on a typewriter, though.) But it's been available for decades! (Only in typesetting venues, which is absurdly unlikely for a personal memo.) But...but...but...(insert picture here of Juan Williams' head exploding).
Bottom line, this particular variant of Times (TrueType Times New Roman) did not exist in 1973.
It is now one of the most common fonts in word processing.
But it was not around in 1973. Not with this style of kerning and letterspacing. Even some of the characters are slightly different. Subtle, but different.
Not for a typewriter.
kjnspc signed up today -- just what I would expect from a troll -- the Lt Colonel had the letters typeset since he couldn't type himself. That is hilarious!
Font Proof BTTT... Dan Blather is doing a p!s$ poor job of coverup.
"It's over, Danny..."
|
|
|
Courier was originally designed in 1956 by Howard Kettler for the revolutionary “golfball” typing head technology IBM was then developing for its electric typewriters. (The first typewriter to use the technology was the IBM Selectric Typewriter that debuted in 1961.) Adrian Frutiger had nothing to do with the design, though IBM hired him in the late 1960s to design a version of his Univers typeface for the Selectric. In the 1960s and 1970s Courier became a mainstay in offices. Consequently, when Apple introduced its first Macintosh computer in 1984 it anachronistically included Courier among its core fonts. In the early 1990s Microsoft, locked in a font format battle with Adobe, hired Monotype Typography to design a series of core fonts for Windows 3.1, many of which were intended to mirror those in the Apple core font group. Thus, New Courier—lighter and crisper than Courier—was born. (In alphabetized screen menus font names are often rearranged for easier access so now we have Courier New MT in which the MT stands for Monotype Typography.)
Courier’s vanquisher was Times New Roman, designed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent. The Times of London first used it the following year. Linotype and Intertype quickly licensed the design, changing its name for their marketing purposes to Times Roman. Times Roman became an original core font for Apple in the 1980s and Times New Roman MT became one for Windows in the 1990s. (Ironically, at the same time IBM invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric Typewriter, they asked Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.) Whether superior to Courier or not, neither of these digital renditions of Morison’s original design is the best one available today—in the opinion of information design specialist Erik Spiekermann that honor goes to a version called Times Ten.
Has anyone tried processing the document using the Adobe version of Times Roman? That's the Linotype version.
Does anyone else see the irony of a font being Dan Rathers downfall ? You can't make this stuff up, it's his destiny !
Did you hear Dan's voice and see how he looked as he tries pathetically to lie his way out of this situation on his broadcast today?
He looked like crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
