Miguel Hernandez's picture

please review this site to view this new font;

gregorycadars's picture

Very fine font set! I like it, especially the LC characters m, n, s, & g.
The UC Q looks strange but still legible. Perhaps the D and the upper part of the B looks too square, but it's rare to see bitmap fonts with a real style like this one.
Good luck distributing it!


designalchemy's picture

Uppercase Q is strange but very nice. I like it but I think it may have legibility issues.

matthew_dob's picture

Great text block...not so sure about the lc 'w' - it seems too wide, but its a minor gripe.

Overall, the most stylish 8 pt font I have ever seen.


designalchemy's picture

Hi Miguel. I have looked at this face with amazement since its post, so here is my critique. There is nothing that I can see that needs to change. I could sugggest a set of lining numerals to be added to an alternate version and perhaps the lc w is a bit wide, I can however not suggest a better way of doing it so leaving it might be best. The lc 'g" is really nice, as well as the old style numerals. I would buy this. Ole

Joe Pemberton's picture

As usual very nicely done.

At the risk of stating the obvious, you're
deliberately using the limitations of the
medium (straight lines, 45 degree diagonals)
to improve the design. (Especially referring to
the curves of the m, n, s, w, g, and even the b
and q.)


Miguel Hernandez's picture

Thanks for the comments and this is only a part of a complete family character set whith many versions in all the ways that i can design.
The idea is to distribuying the complete pack of fonts(9)
Please tell me what you think, Typophilers?

Miguel Hernández.


hrant's picture

I think it's stellar - consider asking money for it (if you haven't already).


kraftie's picture

Miguel - let me know as soon as it's available!

Miguel Hernandez's picture

Please let me know if any of this alternative "w´s" is better than the original to reprace if it´s works well.



hrant's picture

To me, maybe the second, but definitely the third is better than the original.


matthew_dob's picture

I agree with Hrant. The second is more in line with the overall feeling of the font.

Matthew Brown

Joe Pemberton's picture

3... that's the magic number.

Miguel Hernandez's picture

Hola Typophiles,

Here is the new version of fundamental, please take a look, compare and decide if this example is more close to a final version, i need to launch this font soon so i will apreciate a lot your sugestions.

Thanks for your time,


Fabio Augusto's picture

Hi Miguel,

Fundamental is very fine pixeldesign
but, I see with attention:

- lc "s" (For me he seems strange. The
terminals are too short. In the minimental
his is good!

- lc "t" (The Cross Stroke is short. I think one
pixel more.

- up "J" (too wide for me)

- up "Q" (I thought this tail could bigger, no?
I liked the old version, make it as alternative
opition. Cool ;D)

Por enquanto

Miguel Hernandez's picture

Ok guys, here is the corrections in the same paragraph text as the old one, you can compare the color of the pagraph text, if is more readable or not, and of course the new ligatures that works on this version.
Please Critique, thanks to Fabio Augusto :-)


dana's picture

Just as with your other work, fundamental is great! Is there any chance that Detroit 45 might be published as well?

afo's picture

I'm blown away by how legible this is. and yet it's very characteristic as well. you seem to have a true grasp on pixels - how they infer letterforms, from the ground up. well done.

the only thing that I'm so sure of are the ligatures - even though they certainly are a nice touch.

I want to see the italic version! I would buy this (assuming I have $$$ that month)

- andrew

seg's picture

looking again at it now i realise what a beautifull screen font this is. certainly one of my all-time screen fonts favorates.

and congratulation on joining the atomic media team. i somehow missed that.

Syndicate content Syndicate content