My guess: This has nothing to do with lacking support in the file format, but rather the unpredictable way Windows’ rendering works. See this thread.

Truetype hinting and Postscript hinting are two different things, though.

I use apple and things have become even weirder. At 50% sample 2 looks better than sample 3. BTW: This whole thread is only about the regular (lightest) weight. The other 2 weights are both unhinted.

The differences you got are from screen tests with Acrobat/Reader or from prints?

I also got generally better on screen results with non-hinted versions. But non-hinted complex glyphs, like ampersand or section mark, sometimes render horribly –while the hinted version keeps a reasonable (although suboptimal) result.

With print tests, hinted fonts are definitively better, especially at sizes smaller than 14pt. PS hinting excels for printing but achieves limited results on screen. If your font is designed mainly for screen usage, TT hinting is a better choice.

I compared your PDF files on screen (Windows Vista, Acrobat 9). At 50%, the non-hinted reads better. At 100% the only noticeable difference is a pixel up/down in H bar, with very subtle changes in curves –but both reads well. At 150% they are rigorously equal, except for g –but, again, both are good.

Proper alignment zones (this is, zones which coincides with main stems/curves of your glyphs) helps to get better on screen result. But I don't know if this feature is available in TypeTool (I use FontLab).

The differences are in Acrobat Reader. I thought hinting in general was mainly for use on screen. It appears I was wrong. Does PS hinting work the same way as TT hinting? I didn't know there was a difference. I'll have a look in the TypeTool manual for Proper Alignment Zones and PS hinting. The difference you saw in the H bar shouldn't be there since I only did the lowercase regular letters. Thanks a lot for your help.

The TypeTool manual doesn't say anything about 'Proper alignment zones'. The only hinting in Typetool seems to be Type 1 hinting for (logically) Type 1 fonts. Is this of any use when I don't make Type 1 font? Type 1 seems to have gotten out of use. Furthermore it says that hints for True-Type fonts are always genrated automatcally. huh?! Does this also count for opentype ps? Does this mean I should forget about hinting? It doesn't say anything about opentype ps hinting.

I'M CONFUSED!

.

ps http://typophile.com/node/70834

Both PS and TT hinting acts on screen and on printing. PS is simpler and focused on printing. TT is far more complex and targets screen results.

OpenType format could be generated in two "flavors", OpenType PS (also called OT CFF) or OpenType TT. Both are mainly equal, the hinting system is their main difference.

You must use the hinting system according to the kind of OT file you plan to generate. Please note you also must set you UPM size differently to one or other format (PS default is 1000 UPM while TT default is 2048).

The vast majority of OpenType fonts are OT PS. One of the few exceptions is Vesper Pro.

Suggestion: does not forget about hinting. Set hints manually as you're already doing and rely on print tests more than screen ones. Keep going with OT PS and put your focus on producing a good and consistent design. In the future, you can use this PS font to produce an OT TT for screen/web use if this is necessary.

Thanks Freiberger. You've been of great help.

In TypeTool, the "Type 1 hinting" is used in Type 1 fonts and in OpenType PS fonts. It also gets automatically converted into TrueType hinting, which is used in OpenType TT fonts.

thanks, that's a great relief.

Have a look at http://sites.twardoch.com/typography/font-tech/

the website you gave me is about fontlab-studio, but it seems logical that TypeTool works the same way.

Yes, TypeTool has less options for detailed settings but the general concept is the same.