Aye, nice one opipik. I'm sure it's easier to fit more differentiation into 5 px.  I like the g, s and 4.

And it's quite readable, good job!

+ many disambiguations = a well-thought design in mono.

1. You cannot really compare 5x5 and 5x4.

2. My strict 5x4 after your limited 5x4 was a proof of concept : the readability is damaged if we stretch the glyphs horizontally (but it's quite doable, though a lot more difficult than using the proportional/conventional glyphs).

Please comment on the right thread (font page), if you need to improve your interesting very low-res designs, else the user cannot follow us, since 2013…

Here's the link to opipik's proud "fs 5x4"…

I replied throughly there… I hope you'll learn the meaning of readability before referring to a less legible experiment ;-)

Metadata:
«
Readability v.s. legibility in very low-res raster text characters, (c) 2017-12-17 dpla.
• 'Readable' from the standpoint of a correct code point* (with an optional legibility);
• 'Legible' from the standpoint of a correct glyph shape (with a necessary readability).
Be aware that the both columns in this example only feature a selection of degradations.
* When you DUPLICATE a glyph, your font is broken and unusable for _any_ context of use;
If you cannot provide a complete US-ASCII, your creature is NOT A FONT, even as >=8-bit.
http://www.dpla.fr/fonts/micro/doc/
»