Page 5 of 7
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:58 pm
Popcorn: wow, you went way
around the block to get to http://www.vintagetype.com
Since the thread has drifted in the direction of Final Draft and Courier, I'd like to use the opportunity to once again point out how abysmal Final Draft's type rendering is.
My path to Scrivener was through the excellent Write Room (I actually think an AmberV post in their forum got me here), and the reason I started looking around at all is because staring at the ratty way FD presents courier was driving me insane. I'm almost done with the Scrivener draft of my current script, and I'm really not looking forward to living in Final Draft again. Really, they should be embarrassed.
There, I'm done. Thanks for listening.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:36 am
It was supposed to be an image link.
All better now.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:02 am
Sean Coffee wrote:the ratty way FD presents courier was driving me insane. ... I'm really not looking forward to living in Final Draft again. Really, they should be embarrassed.
Don't get me started on Final Draft. Like many others, I went back to FD6 because FD7 was so buggy. Company's gone straight to hell, too, if you ask me.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:31 pm
Sean Coffee wrote:the reason I started looking around at all is because staring at the ratty way FD presents courier was driving me insane.
That FD insanity is exactly how I ended up here with Scrivener. After switching over to OS X and getting spoiled by native applications, working in FD is like jumping into a time machine. It's absolutely crazy to stare for hours and hours at that antique user interface and abysmal text rendering, after all this progress has been made on the OS X platform!
I tried working with a screenplay template in Mellel, I tried convincing Blue Tech to develop a screenplay version of Ulysses, I tried beta testing Montage, I tried convincing Hog Bay to develop a screenplay version of Write Room. Then finally I discovered Scrivener!
So I write in Scrivener, and import into FD6 only when I absolutely have to. I also went back to 6 after upgrading to FD7.
OK. Rant over!
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:38 pm
popcornflix wrote:Also, the reason that some people don't like Courier Final Draft is that some PC printers substitute a particularly light version of Courier, instead of downloading the actual font. So the script looks anemic. That's a printer problem that can be solved with better drivers, not a font problem.
Thanks for that information. I've always wondered about this. I print to a Canon Pixma iP4000 via OS X 10.4.8, and I've always felt that the Courier Final Draft looked anemic. I wonder if this can be improved?
How exactly do you solve this with better drivers?
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:59 am
gerry wrote:I print to a Canon Pixma iP4000 via OS X 10.4.8, and I've always felt that the Courier Final Draft looked anemic. I wonder if this can be improved?
How exactly do you solve this with better drivers?
Look on Canon's site to see if they have a more current driver.
To test if your printer is working correctly, Make an RTF document in TextEdit, and write three lines, one under the next. Format one in Courier, one in Courier Final Draft, and one in Times. Now print and compare.
If all three look the same, your printer is substituting all fonts; if the two couriers look the same, your printer isn't using Courier Final Draft. If Courier looks lighter than Courier Final Draft, it's a subjective issue, and you could adjust the printer to print darker overall.
Or, you could come to grips with the sad revelation that Courier Final Draft is the font-of-the-realm, and get used to it.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:10 pm
popcornflix wrote:If all three look the same, your printer is substituting all fonts [...] Or, you could come to grips with the sad revelation that Courier Final Draft is the font-of-the-realm, and get used to it.
Thanks for the info. I installed the latest driver, did the the test, and it confirmed the printer is using the correct fonts. Courier Final Draft is lighter than Courier.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:19 pm
gerry wrote:Courier Final Draft is lighter than Courier. I've just always found Courier Final Draft to be somewhat anemic looking.
Maybe your printer has some kind of beefy Courier, rather than Apple's Courier. Look at this for comparison:
CFD uses the same medium stroke weight, so it should be heavier than Courier.
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:53 pm
popcornflix wrote:CFD uses the same medium stroke weight, so it should be heavier than Courier.
OK, this is strange. So you are saying that CFD should be heavier than Courier, and yet I am experiencing the opposite.
Here are the specs I have listed in Font Book:
Courier: Version 5.1d1e1, Apple Computer
Courier Final Draft: Version 3.510, Vintage Type
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:30 am
OS X comes with two versions of Courier - "Courier" and "Courier New". "Courier New" is thinner than "Courier". To me, it looks as though popcornflix used "Courier New", not "Courier", in his image, whereas you used the straight "Courier", which is indeed thicker.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:54 am
Actually, my image came from vintagetype.com, and it uses standard Courier.
It appears that Apple updated Courier to be similar to HP's very popular Courier Dark, and made no announcement of it. It seems to have happened within the last 18 months or so.
I checked the metrics, and it looks like it's 10-pitch. It doesn't change the page count when substituted for CFD.
THANKS for pointing this out! Nice, dark type. I wonder if it will substitute a thinner courier if you send a PDF to a Windows machine...?
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:54 pm
Don't get me started on Final Draft.
I know. For awhile there I was posting FD rants in every forum I visited.
Company's gone straight to hell, too, if you ask me.
I can't understand their lack of responsiveness to the needs of the professional writer. I've written them a couple of times to request features (full screen, a better interface, readable type) and I keep getting responses along the lines of "we're a small company, and we're trying our best." Their best? Have they used their software lately? Have they noticed how much better Scrivener, Write Room and the rest look? Have they seen Scrivener's notecard implementation? Sorry FD -- development staffs don't get much smaller than one guy, and he's blowing you away.
The last email from them said that full screen wasn't slated for FD8, but might be addressed by FD9!! Which is awesome -- I can write full screen in the back of my flying car on my way to my 75th high school reunion.
It's sad, really. The last year or so has been kind of a breakthrough year for brilliant writing software. I was hoping FD would rise to the occasion. I think my only alternative is to wait for the new Movie Magic (which I hear is good) or for Montage to get it's act together. I miss the old BC Software and the days of Three By Five.
Of course, I'm happy to have Scrivener for my first drafts. Even without page breaks.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:21 am
Sean Coffee wrote:I can't understand their lack of responsiveness to the needs of the professional writer.
The guy who started the company sold out around v6 to the marketing guy. I heard that they started enforcing hard deadlines on programmers. That means the software ships on the announced date, whether it has bugs or not. So earlier adopters are actually beta-testers.
Their latest move was to buy a screenwriting magazine and a screenwriting expo, since apparently you don't have to do as much to make money from those.
Sean Coffee wrote:The last email from them said that full screen wasn't slated for FD8, but might be addressed by FD9!! Which is awesome -- I can write full screen in the back of my flying car on my way to my 75th high school reunion.
Okay, you made me do a spit take. Funny!
The existing script processors s-u-c-k. The only way Scrivener could be much better is if Keith were a screenwriter, and therefore as obsessed as we are with getting the best script tools possible.
Scrivener 101 just plain rocks me like a hurricane.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:46 am
These screenwriting threads have been very interesting to me. It sounds like everyone loathes FD, but that FD does do a good job at final formatting. So no one wants to write on FD, but they feel compelled, because of its adherence to the standards, to use the formatting functions of FD. Is that right?
If so, might it not be possible to set up a template in another WP, such as Mellel to do the formatting? Or even to find someone who's interested in writing a formatting-only app to do something along these lines?
I guess this is probably a naive question, but what's in the way of that happening?
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:08 am
That means the software ships on the announced date, whether it has bugs or not. So earlier adopters are actually beta-testers.
I know, it's an outrage. It's over $200 at retail and $89 for an upgrade for crying out loud!
Their latest move was to buy a screenwriting magazine and a screenwriting expo
And they sell Syd Field videos and they sponsor their Big Break contest. Next thing you know they'll start offering one of those "coverage services" like people used to advertise in the back of Premiere Magazine... oh, wait...
Jesus. They should just go all out and sell maps to the stars' homes.
Look, I support FD's right to be in the Get Rich Writing Screenplays! business -- it's tacky and exploitative and I want no part of it, but they have the right. But they shouldn't expect to be leveraging that "industry standard" title for much longer. Someone is going to figure out how to make a world class screenwriting
app, and writers all over L.A. will line up to buy it. (Pudgiest. Line. Ever.)