Pug

afo's picture

this is an early sketch, based on a photoshop file viewed at 66.7%.
the 'a', 'e', and 's' were the first characters.

despite the fact that I'm sort of 'excited' about this font, I can't honestly see myself using it in my own work (obviously, that's not to say it's only worth doing if I can use it etc) that said, would anyone here see this being 'usable', given its tiny size?

pug!

afo's picture

set with a few paragraphs...

there are some issues with weight, I think (considering the word "seven" following "microfilm" in the first line).

comments and/or nitpicking would be appreciated.

Fourte

bschoech's picture

I think this is quite stylish, particularly the lc g which reminds me of Baskerville. In my opinion, 2-pixel sidebearings are a vast improvement over the former. Also, the numerals appear a bit too big.

pablohoney77's picture

> [Delete this line and type your message here] >

tyleryoung's picture

Andrew,

Very nice pixel font. In many ways, this is the most elegant pixel font I've seen. Why? 1) because it embodies the original spirit of pixel fonts as I understand it: clear type at ridiculously small sizes, and 2) because it employs creativity to complete the character set that would otherwise be impossible at such a small size.

I've played with using negative space in similar ways with many of my smaller fonts (toto classic for example), in effect, looking for an overall balance in the character set as a whole. I've not been able to pull it off to my satisfaction.

You, in my opinion, have.

I know that this is an impossible request, but, is there anything you can do to the v and w to make them look less "cursive"?

afo's picture

thanks for the comments! I think I've worked out a majority of the "color" issues (that's the appropriate terminology, right?)... as well as numerals. various characters have been "lightened". could it be too light though? I'm on the fence. here's the font currently (called "fourte"):

fourte 2

tyleryoung's picture

I like your lighter version Fourte better. After a lot of going back and forth and scanning, I swear the newest version flows better to me. I suppose this is because there is a better balance between positive and negative space in the characters, and once my mind gets used to filling in the blanks, it flows. Not so many tiny blobs of black to stop my eye every other word.

I think you can give the w and v the same treatment. I've done it already on my machine, and think it looks better still. However, I'm not so sure tweaking your design and posting it is something that ought to be done, so I leave it up to you to try it if you like.

Hint though: just two mouse clicks on the w, and one click on the v. Check it out and see what you think.

Also, while I really like the uniformity of your new numerals, they look like they belong to a relative of this font, and not necessarily this one. Try narrowing the widths by one pixel.

afo's picture

originally I was intending for the numerals to seem too big, as whenever I've had numerals consistent with the other characters they seem to get lost in the fray. that said, I do think I prefer the numerals in this new version, which are only slightly larger than the lowercase characters...

fourte 3

the height of the 'l' has been shortened by 1 px - it might not last to the final version but I do think it sits better in body text this way.

regarding the 'w' and 'v' - the 'w' is definitely an improvement, but I'm a little uncertain about the current 'v' as the form seems to be nearly breaking up visually.

anyway, thanks again

andrew_fall's picture

I think this is pretty near perfect. Some characters are perhaps a tad ambitious given the size constraints (the fractions, for example), and I don't think it was necessary to shorten the l/c L, but I'd love to use it.

Syndicate content Syndicate content