Re: AFMs for Blue Sky CM/PS fonts...

["Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>]

   Well, in practice it looks like the only real difference between the
   BaKoMa fonts and the BlueSky ones is that the BlueSky ones are freer,
   since they're now in the public domain. I compared Metafont, BaKoMa

You may find a difference in file size and rendering speed also.

   and BlueSky fonts on my aged 300dpi printer and on-screen on my NeXT
   and couldn't find anything to recommend the BlueSky fonts over the
   BaKoMa ones quality wise. This may be a shame or a triumph (depending
   on your perspective), given the fact that hours of human effort went
   into hinting the BlueSky fonts and a machine came up with the hints
   for the BaKoMa ones. (*)

You are not going to see a huge difference at 300 dpi unless you know
what to look for (like `dogleg' phenonmen on R and `epaulets' on `M').
The difference is more noticable on screen at 96dpi or 120 dpi in Windows,
or 72 dpi on the Mac. 

NexT does not provide a good comparison test because it is not using a
top quality rasterizer. And on printers it will depend on the quality
of the rasterizer also (i.e. is it a true Adobe rasterizer).

   Later today I might compare the fonts under Acrobat and on a modern
   600dpi printer.

Berthold.