[Welcome to D-Type - Scalable Font, Text and Graphics Rendering Engines]

[Zoom Out][Zoom In]

Standard Suite

Text Suite

Power Suite

Plugins / Web

Apps & Tools


[Applications and Tools]
[D-Type Font Converter][Windows][Mac OS][Linux]
[Generate super compact D-Type fonts that know no limits]

More compact than Compact Font Format (CFF).

Overview

[NEW] If you are using D-Type Font Engine, D-Type PowerDoc Engine or D-Type Text Engine to render text, it makes sense to store your fonts in D-Type format. D-Type fonts are more versatile and more compact than existing commonly used font formats, such as TypeType, OpenType, Type 1 and even Adobe's CFF (Compact Font Format). The conversion to D-Type format can be done very easily using D-Type Font Converter and D-Type Font Optimizer — two simple command line programs available for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X.

Features

D-Type font format is feature rich. Every single feature that is available in existing commonly used font formats is also available in D-Type. However, D-Type font format is more compact, more sophisticated and less redundant than any existing font format on the market today. It is the principal format developed for D-Type Font Engine, the next generation scalable font technology.

Feature Comparison With Major Font Formats

Feature Font Format
TrueType/OpenType Type 1 CFF D-Type
Compact file size No Yes Yes Yes
Pure binary format Yes No Mostly Yes
Efficient to parse and process Yes No Mostly Yes
No redundant data No Yes Yes Yes
Clean design
(e.g. no messy data structures)
Mostly No Somewhat Yes
Easily extensible Yes No Somewhat Yes
Supports more than 256 glyphs in a single file Yes No Yes Yes
Supports Unicode Yes No Yes Yes
Supports advanced typography Yes No No Yes
All font data in a single file Yes No No Yes
Random access Yes No Yes Yes
Supports multiple fonts in a single file
(i.e. font collections)
Yes No No Yes
Supports multiple-master fonts No Yes No Yes
Supports glyph hints or instructions Yes Yes Yes Yes
Validator available Yes Not to our knowledge Not to our knowledge Yes

File Size

In the following section we show how compact and efficient D-Type font format is. We compare the size of 8 randomly chosen fonts in TrueType, Type 1 and CFF (Compact Font Format) with D-Type. We also show the size of each font when compressed using a conventional ZIP compressor. This helps illustrate how efficient each format is. For example, if a 90 KB font file can be compressed to a 46 KB ZIP file, then its efficiency is only about 51% (or 100 * 46 / 90), which is not very high. If, however, a 90 KB font file can be compressed to an 85 KB ZIP file, then its efficiency is about 94% (or 100 * 85 / 90), which is very high. When the efficiency is so high, not much additional reduction in size can be gained by compressing the original font file. In other words, the font file is already highly compact. The tests we ran below show that fonts converted from TypeType/OpenType, Type 1 and CFF format to D-Type are always extremely compact and their efficiency is consistently very high, around 90% on an average.

It is also interesting to note that the efficiency of TrueType/OpenType, probably the most commonly used format today, is quite low, around 58%. More importantly, by converting TrueType/OpenType to D-Type fonts, it is possible to reduce their file size almost 3 times!

TrueType/OpenType vs D-Type

Font Name TrueType/OpenType Format D-Type Format D-Type
Size
Reduction
(A / D)
A
Original Size
 
B
Zipped Size
 
C
Efficiency
(B / A * 100)
D
Original Size
 
E
Zipped Size
 
F
Efficiency
(E / D * 100)
Times New Roman 3.00
(times.ttf)
400 KB226 KB56% 121 KB103 KB85% 3.3
Arial 3.00
(arial.ttf)
359 KB194 KB54% 106 KB88 KB83% 3.4
Palatino 1.15
(pala.ttf)
495 KB302 KB61% 138 KB116 KB84% 3.6
Verdana 2.35
(verdana.ttf)
137 KB80 KB58% 56 KB47 KB83% 2.4
Tahoma 2.80
(verdana.ttf)
260 KB152 KB58% 99 KB87 KB88% 2.6
Courier New 2.76
(cour.ttf)
291 KB169 KB58% 100 KB87 KB87% 2.9
Georgia 2.05
(cour.ttf)
140 KB90 KB64% 63 KB58 KB92% 2.2
Lucida Sans Unicode 2.00
(l_10646.ttf)
317 KB178 KB56% 122 KB109 KB89% 2.6
Average Efficiency and Overall Reduction 58%   86% 2.9

Note: Testing performed by D-Type Solutions in February 2012.

Conclusions

Type 1 vs D-Type

Font Name Type 1 Format D-Type Format D-Type
Size
Reduction
(A / D)
A
Original Size
 
B
Zipped Size
 
C
Efficiency
(B / A * 100)
D
Original Size
 
E
Zipped Size
 
F
Efficiency
(E / D * 100)
Helvetica 003.001
(hv______.pfb)
32 KB31 KB97% 16 KB15 KB94% 2
Antique Olive Roman 001.002
(aqr_____.pfb)
31 KB29 KB93% 16 KB15 KB94% 1.9
LucidaTypewriterEF-Bold 001.000
(ldbd____.pfb)
56 KB52 KB92% 26 KB24 KB92% 2.2
URW Chancery L Medium Italic 001.005
(z003034l.pfb)
38 KB37 KB97% 26 KB27 KB96% 1.5
URW Palladio L Roman 1.06
(p052003l.pfb)
173 KB172 KB99% 50 KB41 KB82% 3.5
URW Bookman L Light 1.06
(b018012l.pfb)
138 KB137 KB99% 52 KB45 KB86% 2.7
Nimbus Roman No9 L Medium 1.06
(n021004l.pfb)
133 KB132 KB99% 49 KB43 KB88% 2.7
Computer Modern 001.100
(cmmib5.pfb)
34 KB31 KB91% 20 KB19 KB95% 1.7
Average Efficiency and Overall Reduction 96%   91% 2.3

Note: Testing performed by D-Type Solutions in February 2012.

Conclusions

CFF vs D-Type

Font Name CFF Format D-Type Format D-Type
Size
Reduction
(A / D)
A
Original Size
 
B
Zipped Size
 
C
Efficiency
(B / A * 100)
D
Original Size
 
E
Zipped Size
 
F
Efficiency
(E / D * 100)
CMU Bright Roman
(CMUBright-Roman.cff)
184 KB97 KB52% 111 KB101 KB91% 1.6
CMU Serif Upright Italic
(CMUSerif-UprightItalic.cff)
248 KB114 KB46% 122 KB112 KB85% 1.5
ESL Gothic Unicode
(ESLGothic.cff)
40 KB21 KB52% 27 KB23 KB92% 1.5
Kozuka Mincho Pro
(Kozuka.cff)
3,671 KB3,230 KB88% 3,637 KB3,393 KB93% 1.0
Adobe Caslon Pro Bold
(ACaslopPro-Bold.cff)
113 KB95 KB84% 102 KB99 KB97% 1.1
Adobe Arabic Regular
(AdobeArabic-Regular.cff)
103 KB77 KB75% 98 KB83 KB85% 1.1
Nimbus Sans L Bold
(FreeSansBold.cff)
55 KB32 KB58% 38 KB34 KB89% 1.4
AntykwaTorunska-Regular
(AntykwaTorunska-Regular.cff)
103 KB77 KB75% 94 KB82 KB87% 1.1
Average Efficiency and Overall Reduction 66%   90% 1.3

Note: Testing performed by D-Type Solutions in February 2012.

Conclusions