OpenType, TrueType, PostScript?

Is it a simple as OpenType is better than TrueType is better than PostScript?

All depends on your usage. If you deal with prepress or press shops a lot, then you definitely want to use PostScript fonts. Professional RIPs don't like TrueType fonts much. Otherwise, TrueType is fine for general use. OpenType fonts have a great advantage in style choices. Older 8 bit fonts (TrueType or PostScript Type 1) are limited to 256 glyphs (characters). OpenType can handle 65,000 glyphs per type face (actual count is 65,536, which is 256 squared). You'll find tons of special swash characters, ligatures and other stuff to play with if you're really into typography.

OpenType isn't really any "better" than TrueType because OpenType fonts can be purchased in either TrueType or PostScript format. Though since PostScript fonts are handled just fine in OS X for printing and cost no more than TrueType versions, I'd suggest always purchasing the PostScript version when you have the option. Here's a short rundown on common fonts and their file suffixes.

Usually no file suffixes - Type 1 PostScript, 256 characters. Separate screen and printer fonts that must be kept together in the same folder to work.

.ttf - original TrueType Font, 256 characters.

.ttf - TrueType Family, 256 characters. More than one type face bundled into what looks like a single font.

.ttf - OpenType TrueType font. 65,000 characters. And no, it's not a mistake. They really did give all three TrueType versions the same file suffix.

.otf - OpenType PostScript font. 65,000 characters.

Oops! Forgot to add two extremely common fonts.

Usually no file suffixes - Legacy Mac TrueType fonts. 256 characters. From OS 9 and earlier. Multiple TrueType fonts packed into a single font suitcase. You only see the one file on your desktop, but it can contain any number of individual fonts.

.dfont - OS X version of the old Mac TrueType fonts in a suitcase which can also have any number of TrueType fonts within. Basically the same idea as above with two exceptions. All font data is in the data fork of each TrueType font rather than the resource fork. Each font can contain up to 65,000 characters like an OpenType font instead of being limited to 256.

Hi Roy,

Kurt is correct, however, if you are NOT going to be generating files for printing/press work I suggest either OTF or TT. First off ... they are easier to use and mistakes in type usage are generally forgiving in these formats more than in PS.

In PS type 1 format (for example) you can use Garamond-BoldItalic if its available in the application font menu, if not, then simply turning on bolding and italics in the Quark Dialogue box will not yield the desired result.

This isn't the case with OTF or TT versions. They are more flexible and have more options available. But, as Kurt stated, PDF and PS level 2 and 3 environments (such as Print Shop - RIPS or Rasters) like the PS world a bit better. Although, since installing our PDF RIP about 18 months ago, I have had trouble with only 1 font and only the 1 time (in over 3500 different files being ripped/rastered)

Hi colin,

Good extra info. I've been self employed for about 7 years now, so haven't touched a RIP for that long. Almost everything I do is image work in Photoshop (don't miss trapping files at all 😉 ) Back when I was still working in a shop, they were just starting to add the ability to RIPs to handle TrueType fonts. They would take them, but the type along any curved edge looked like a 3 year old had cut the letter out of a sheet of paper.

Yes, TrueType or OpenType fonts are much easier since you can't separate the screen font from the printer font as you can with Type 1 PostScript. By the way Roy, that doesn't apply to OpenType PostScript fonts. They are self contained the same way TrueType fonts are. You can't accidentally separate the parts of a font. You either have (example) Garamond Bold or you don't.

In PS type 1 format (for example) you can use Garamond-BoldItalic if its available in the application font menu, if not, then simply turning on bolding and italics in the Quark Dialogue box will not yield the desired result.

Just a little extra info on colin's comment who've never worked with a RIP. When you check the Bold or other attribute button in Quark, Word, or other app which allows you to do that, you are doing just that. Only applying an attribute. That is, a faked rendering of a font you don't have. Pretty much any printer you use at home will give you bold, italic or whatever you checked even if you don't have an actual bold or italic font. RIPs won't do that. You must have the italic font in order to get an italic font where you expect it in your output.