The typophiles discuss choices for Futura:
- Neufville Futura ND, digitized from scratch from the originals. Preferred by most, but expensive.
- On Adobe's Futura, Franz Heidl writes: Adobe's Futura surely isn't that good at all, for example if you set it without linespacing (as was called Kompress in the days of metal type over here in Germany) ascenders and descenders will overlap. That surely wouldn't have happened with metal type, so that's a technical fault to Adobe Futura, at least to my understanding. Stephen Coles reminds the readers that Adobe's Futura has some problems.
- On URW's version: The URW version seems to stress the somewhat elegant quality Futura has and appears pretty thin to me. Adam Twardoch: The Futura from EF and URW are identical in the basic design since they come from the same source. The URW version is in OpenType, has small caps, CE characters as well as Greek and Cyrillic (although these are very poor). People also point out that the FuturaEF version is incomplete. After this discussion ended, URW++ published an extensive Futura Black family (2008).
- The Berthold version is unanimously lauded: the Berthold BQ version seems much more stable and robust to me (and if you look at old prints of Futura, it surely had that quality as well and didn't come across as the super-elegant thing we're used to from cosmetics packagings and the like today!).
- Bitstream's Futura has some supporters as well, including Mark Simonson.
- Twentieth Century about which P22/Lanston writes: Twentieth Century was Lanston Monotype's answer to Futura. In fact, Sol Hess' redrawing of Futura is so close that this new digital revival includes alternates of the long lost original letterforms (left out of the popular released version) originally designed by Paul Renner for Futura, but were left out of the released version that has become so popular. 20th Century is a modern sans serif with apparent geometry yet it still has a certain warmth in its design.
Choice of fonts ⦿