The designer of this FontStruction has chosen not to make it available for download from this website by choosing an “All Rights Reserved" license.
Please respect their decision and desist from requesting license changes in the comments.
If you would like to use the FontStruction for a specific project, you may be able to contact the designer directly about obtaining a license.
9 Comments
The forced square style (5x5 matrix to the max) produces duplicates…
I don't think so.
"0=O" and "5=S" are duplicates (thus an 'invalid' font - I call these sets of low-res pixel characters 'pseudo fonts').
Besides, when you'll try to add the lowercase, this problem will get worse.
… but to be accommodating (we need'nt discuss the facts), this frequent flaw (provoked here mainly from the excessive weight) has potentially interesting contexts of use (provided the text is unambiguous). For example, the bold corners help the assembling of voxels in cubes (cf. this tower). Besides, of course, the square style is aesthetic (just from the symmetries it adds).
Still no denial(*), DLyons123?
So, if you need to think more about this concern (for a v1.0 font?)…
• Ambiguous:
· -0 pixel: "''="" (duplicate as proportional);
· -1 pixel: "K~H", "B/6/9~8", "O~Q" (omitting 'normal' ambiguities);
· -2 pixels: "D~~O", "G~~6", "S/&/3~~8" (ditto).
• "4" and "1" diverge from the rest of the numerics (based on "8" - and in general).
• "Y" is wrongly lowercase.
• "Z" is halfway like "2".
• "1" may be read "i" (later).
Besides you cheated a little bit (because the 5x5 rule looks implicit): the final grid size is 5x6 ("," and ";" being below the 'baseline').
I feel curious about your title ("Recording")… is its context of use quite safe?
I tried to understand why you posted so hastily (and not mistakenly drily, I assume)…
Now I understand/confirm: despite of your fat catalogue on this cool place, I'm afraid you still need to fontstruct at least one valid 'micro' font (which includes 33-126 codepoints) to get how trivial were these pleasant experiments.
I mean, your "3Height", "Textiles Now", "Bit Trip LCD", "Bit Trip Small Caps LCD", "R.C.D Tech" and "RCD Two" fonts, all share the same difficulties that are known under 'very low-res' or 'micro' (etc.) designs (we still need an item on Wikipedia about this kind of compression of pure dot-matrix glyphs).
Keep up these efforts (or leave them sketchy, for anyway people can read and write always smaller with time - and less ambiguously, which is already reassuring).
* This comment took me more time of writing than of fontstructing a fake 5x5 font with dupes.
Here is an image if your design was more visual than mathematical…
Let's take the striking example of the uppercase "O", as 5x5 dots.
LOGICS:
¯¯¯¯¯¯
• CELLS:
· Top: forced and square design [1]
· Bottom: free and round design (2)
• COLORS:
· Green: likely bit
· Red: unlikely bit
· Black: final dots
RESULTS:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[1] may get _4 bits [__'___'_16 unique glyphs]
(2) may get 24 bits (16'777'216 unique glyphs)
In practice, the gap is a lot smaller
{but I think you get the point, now}.
That's a stupid font!
HolmesType03, at least he/she tried. There's no need to be rude. Imagine if I called your font stupid.
Please sign in to comment.