Recently, I was posting a preprint to arXiv. I intentionally removed a journal style, which changed the font to Times New Roman.
You may be alone in that. I think the general consensus is that Computer Modern is pretty horrible.
The pre-defined modes can be found here: ftp://ftp.tug.org/tex/modes.mf
No, seriously, when UTCS replaced the 300dpi laser printers with 600dpi models, Allan Emerson was very upset because his papers suddenly looked different. :-)
But Latin Modern and the default Type 1 version of Computer Modern have exactly the same thickness, so if Computer Modern looks thinner for you then it must be some weird screen effect. (The hinting is a bit different, but I wouldn't have expected that to have a significant effect on current systems where hinting is often ignored anyway.)
First, the main way PDF readers make strokes thicker is via hinting, so it depends on how Computer Modern was embedded into the PDF for starters.
Second, hinting distorts letterforms so many top-quality renderers (like on macOS) don't use it, preferring more accurate letterforms instead. And Preview on macOS is certainly "decent".
Third, "updating" isn't going to do a thing. Whether fonts are rendered as hinted or not is a design decision taken when the PDF rendered was built from the ground up. No "update" is going to change that.
To any professional type designer, it's a terribly balanced font aesthetically, basically every letterform. It looks like a font designed by an engineer, not a designer who knows how to create and balance shapes and lines that are pleasing and easy to the eye. Which, of course, is exactly what it is.
PDF copies also available on scribd: https://www.scribd.com/lists/2705622/Motion-Mountain-Collect...
It doesn't look bad, but I still don't think it quite works for dense paragraphs of text compared to Latin Modern. I do really like how it looks on the slideshow in a sibling comment, though.
http://soliton.vm.bytemark.co.uk/pub/jjg/pdf/vfplot-GUM11.pd...
Oh God, 10 years ago ...
But I stayed for the content. Interesting! And what a great presentation! I have so many questions. What happened to this in the intervening decade? Is the idea incorporated into any other plotting packages? Did you purchase this font to use in your talks?
> Oh God, 10 years ago ...
I know that feeling.
The package vfplot [1] is still available and still under development, it's rather hard to use in that there are lots of parameters to adjust to get decent looking output. There's also an issue in that the "dimension climbing" approach means putting an ellipse at each boundary corner and then as many as you can fit on the line-segment between them, there are lots of ways that this can fail for complex boundaries (coastlines, for example). I think I've fixed this using the fact that "a line segment is a degenerate ellipse", so one can actually calculate a "distance" between a line-segment and an ellipse in almost the same way as one calculates the distance between ellipses. The code for this is in a branch on GitLab [2], but there is still quite a bit of work to do for the 2.0 release (later this year?).
[1] http://soliton.vm.bytemark.co.uk/pub/jjg/en/code/vfplot/
https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/7418/1/MSc_Arnar-Birgisson...
> not a designer who knows how to create and balance shapes and lines that are pleasing and easy to the eye
"Your subjective opinion of the font is wrong, because you're not an expert." If OP and GP (and honestly, most people I know) like the font, how is it not pleasing to the eye? What does it mean for the "aesthetics" to be "_terribly_" balanced?
It's true there's no reference manual for the equations for pleasing shapes, because however our preferences are expressed in our brain, we haven't been able to decode.
But to give one example to your question: the serifs in Computer Modern are thicker than the thin stems of letterforms. That's ugly, full stop. It's not balanced -- the proportions of thicknesses is backwards. The entire function of serifs is to taper and/or finish, never to add weight.
Or another: the loop (lower part) of the double-story lowercase "g" simply extends way too far to the right. It makes the letter feel like it's going to tilt and fall over to the left. It's not balanced, period.
So these are just two examples of terrible balance. Does that hopefully answer your question in a way that isn't an appeal to authority?
Edit: curious why I'm being downvoted for this comment, when I'm just trying to answer the parent comment with actual examples.
And where cmr absolutely excels is the accompanying greek, math symbols and typesetting. Nothing else comes even close in getting it readable, pleasing and uniform.
That's frankly a very idiosyncratic take, and not one many professionals would agree with.
By that logic, toolbars with icons would become easier to use if their icons were all slightly off-center from each other -- which is very much not the case.
Part of reading legibility comes from the shapes of words, not letters by themselves. Generally speaking, we read words -- not letters. When individual letters are off balance or especially non-uniform, they draw attention to themselves rather than making the word coherent as a whole. This, of course, is one of the reasons why kerning pairs are so important.
Also, tapering isn't a "flourish" it's just how roman serifs work. And "uniform box of equal greying when smudged" is neither a flourish nor a rule at all, it appears to be something you've invented.
That's true of all serif fonts with thin stems, no?
1. Is this really true? I went to the bookshelf and pulled out three Knuth books, and at least to my eye, the serifs don't look noticeably thicker than the letter stems in the unbalanced way you mentioned. The exact proportions could be found by checking Volume E or generating proofs from the Metafont sources (haven't tried that), but this seems like the well-known problem with the "spindly" Type-1 versions of CM that many people use today, than in Knuth's actual Computer Modern as in his printed books. (See https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/361722/48 for pictures.)
2. Is this any worse in Computer Modern than in Monotype Modern, the typeface that Knuth was trying to reproduce? This is the font used for TAOCP Vol 1 first edition (1968), Vol 2 first edition (1969), Vol 3 first edition (1973) and Vol 1 second edition (1973). Those books were typeset with hot-metal typesetting (on Monotype machines), and in fact when Addison-Wesley approached Knuth in 1962 (when he was in grad school) to write a book, he was excited because he loved the appearance of their books. The publishers' move to phototypesetting could not recapture that look, and digital typesetting was starting to become feasible, so he took up the problem himself: he wanted to reproduce Monotype Modern so he needed TeX to typeset it, and Metafont to specify it (and Computer Modern was the result).
My guess is that the opinion you're expressing results from a combination of both the above:
• Yes, what Knuth was aiming for (Monotype Modern 8A, or the look of math textbooks he used as a student, or mathematical journals of a certain period: https://projecteuclid.org:443/euclid.bams/1183544082 ) was very much an early 20th-century / late 19th-century look, and it seems the fashion in contemporary typography circles (I suspect this started with William Morris in the 19th century already) to look down on that period and all that it entails (like larger spaces between sentences: witness Bringhurst's comments about "In the nineteenth century, which was a dark and inflationary age in typography and type design" etc). So, people au fait with modern typographical fashions don't quite like the associated style (Scotch Roman typefaces, etc), while many mathematicians quite prefer it.
• The poor Type 1 versions of Computer Modern cause the letter stems to appear thin, and even more so on low-resolution devices like monitors, causing the serifs to appear thicker in comparison.
Personally, comparing Monotype Modern (as in the first editions of TAOCP) and Computer Modern (in print, and using "true" CM), I don't think Computer Modern looks worse than the source typeface in terms of having terrible balance or appearing like "a font designed by an engineer"; the issue is probably more the "shared taste" you mentioned: Knuth's target aesthetic was itself different.
That said, the given justifications still seem subjective to me (why should serifs only taper? I actually like the added weight because it seems to emphasize the orientation of the letter. Why should fonts be scrutinized according to the laws of physics?).
I suppose to some degree the difficulty I'm having is what I view as an over-emphasis on objectivity in a discussion about aesthetics. Not that your perspective is wrong per se, but I find it hard to ignore the strong preference among my peers for choosing (and commenting positively on) this font.
In an extreme, one of my professors presented from notes and blew up his notes' display size like crazy, and I could never get a reasonably information-dense printout of those by printing multiple pages (those sizes were so large the fonts were too slim for the printer's resolution). Granted, it is an abuse of good typesetting, but I imagine my predicament would be helped with a font that had proper contrast.
This is exactly why I like it. Designed by an engineer for the purpose of typesetting engineering articles and books.
Most of the other alternative fonts feel like they were designed by a designer with all the unnecessary flairs that would make a great title/heading font to pad the portfolio but are needlessly distracting in a paragraph of dense technical text interspersed with equations.
Keep in mind that Google / Facebook / Twitter / Apple / Microsoft / etc hire hordes of professional designers and the result is a horrible user experience for everyone. I much prefer Wikipedia and Hacker News to most "modern" web design by professionals.
Serious alternatives were designed by foundries decades or even centuries ago.
I'm talking about good sense of aesthetic proportion and balance, not "flair".
And what exactly is the horrible user experience that Google has created with Roboto, or Apple with San Francisco, or Microsoft with Calibri? They're actually quite excellently balanced and pleasing fonts for their purposes.
It works pretty well balanced in print on systems it was originally targeted to. The main problem with using other fonts in TeX/LaTeX (or anything in, say, Word) is making it so complex equations lay out reasonably. Admittedly a niche problem, but one one that was the original purpose of TeX - and CM works well for it. There are a small number of other options that don't screw it up.
Most common typefaces are useless for mathematics, so it's a bit of an oranges and apples comparison anyway.
I wonder if Knuth himself would even agree. Open Concrete Mathematics next to a volume of TAOCP and see for yourself. It might not be a huge issue for a paper, but anything longer typeset in CM (like many PhD theses) could benefit from a better font. Even for math, there are pretty good alternatives nowadays.
Personally, Computer Modern is a little spindly for my taste (and eyesight). Computer Concrete, on the other hand....
I think a modern typeface (that is, one with contrast between thin and thick strokes among other things) is more acceptable on computers now that high-dpi displays are more common, but the resolution still isn’t perfect and that style isn’t so fashionable in most cases today.
Personally I dislike the shape of the lower case Roman t (the curl at the bottom is way too long and comes too high) and I dislike the italic u and v (as I can’t tell them apart). I think the serifs on the capital T come too low as well.
The wide array of mathematical symbols in latex don’t always go with the font and they can fail to go together well but that is a separate problem (many fonts won’t include them and the symbols weren’t all designed together.)
I recently compiled a document, 20 years later, and find the font horrible.
I was probably used to computer modern and did not realize how awful it was. There were not tons of good fonts easily useable either, that could be another reason.
EDIT: Do you have any insight into why people still work on packages for type-1 fonts? Who still wants to use these, and why?
I guess this Knuth dude knows his stuff.
I also think most of the dislike came from bad pdf rendering for a long time.
The problems with CM are twofold. First, it's an inconsistent and amateur remake of Modern, especially italics. The bowls and straight lines are different angles and widths. Second, the postscript converted version used on most platforms is weirdly, bizarrely thin compared to the original Modern, which does not make for a good reading experience.
I think the renderer has much more to do with the readability of a paper than the font. The combination of LaTeX and Computer Modern is certainly pervasive, but if I had to pick one variable, I would rather read papers using a different font but rendered in LaTeX, rather than a paper using a different renderer to lay out a Computer Modern font. For an example of the latter, take a look at this paper, rendered in Word, with Computer Modern font and some LaTeX-based margins and spacings:
As a typeface aficionado I've spent way too much time building font catalogues such as this in the early 2000s; it's good to see that both quality and quantity of freely available fonts has gone up.
Me too. The formulas look so dark. Do you know of any typefaces where the mathematics and physics formulas look lighter, and, at least to some of us, less imposing?
On low DPI screens (e.g. 96 or even 144 DPI), Computer Modern feels too thin and spindly.
Recently, I came across the mlmodern (https://ctan.org/pkg/mlmodern?lang=en) font. It is a "heavier" version of Computer Modern and I use it for all my documents.
For example:
% From {\tt stsmith@ll.mit.edu}, 10 May 93.
% With |fillin=0|, the diagonal of {\tt cmtt10}'s `z' is too thin.
% |blacker=.8| too thin, 2 too thick.
mode_def docutech = %\[ Xerox 8790 or 4045 (600dpi)
mode_param (pixels_per_inch, 600);
mode_param (blacker, 1);
mode_param (fillin, .1);
mode_param (o_correction, 0.9);
mode_common_setup_;
I was supporting Xerox 8700 laser printers at the time and the settings for a write white printer inevitably caused errors for many characters until I was generating at least a .600gf file. I have vague recollections of the same issue coming up occasionally even when I was printing to a 1200dpi Compaq.