TTF vs PFB: Complete Format Comparison
Comprehensive comparison of TrueType Font (TTF) and PostScript Font Binary (PFB) formats covering technical foundations, rendering quality, compatibility, and modern alternatives
In Simple Terms
PFB (PostScript Type 1) is deprecated—Adobe ended support January 2023. TTF uses quadratic curves, PFB uses cubic curves.Convert PFB to OTF or TTF immediately. TTF is better for desktop use with broader compatibility than legacy PFB format.For web: Convert both TTF and PFB to WOFF2. Use OTF/TTF for desktop, WOFF2 for modern web projects. PFB has no future.
In this article
TrueType Font (TTF) and PostScript Font Binary (PFB) represent two fundamentally different approaches to digital font technology, each developed by competing companies and embodying distinct philosophies about type rendering. TTF, created by Apple in 1989 and licensed to Microsoft, uses quadratic Bézier curves and comprehensive hinting instructions designed for screen rendering. PFB, part of Adobe's PostScript Type 1 font format from 1984, uses cubic Bézier curves optimized for professional printing with PostScript printers. This rivalry defined desktop publishing for decades, with PostScript fonts dominating high-end design while TrueType gained consumer market dominance through Windows and macOS bundling.
The technical differences between these formats are substantial. TTF stores font data in a table-based binary structure with quadratic Bézier curves requiring two control points per curve segment, while PFB uses cubic Bézier curves with three control points allowing more elegant mathematical descriptions of complex curves. PostScript fonts traditionally came as two files: PFB (binary outline data) and PFM/AFM (metrics), though they can be combined in PFA (ASCII) format. TrueType's single-file structure and superior hinting made it ideal for screen display, while PostScript's mathematical elegance and printer support made it the professional choice until OpenType unified both technologies.
This comprehensive guide compares TTF and PFB across all technical and practical dimensions. You'll learn the historical context of the Apple-Adobe font wars, detailed technical differences in curve mathematics and file structures, platform and software compatibility showing how each format's support evolved, quality comparisons for screen versus print rendering, appropriate use cases for each format in modern workflows, conversion methods and limitations when moving between formats, and why OpenType (which can contain either TTF or PostScript outlines) replaced both as the universal standard. Whether maintaining legacy documents or understanding font history, this guide provides complete knowledge of these foundational font technologies.
Format Overview
TrueType Font (TTF)
History and Philosophy:
- • Developed by Apple in 1989 to compete with Adobe's PostScript monopoly
- • Licensed to Microsoft in 1991, became Windows/macOS standard
- • Designed for screen rendering with sophisticated hinting
- • Single-file format simplified font management
- • Won consumer market through OS bundling, lost professional market initially
Technical Foundation:
- • Quadratic Bézier curves (2 control points)
- • TrueType hinting language for pixel-perfect rendering
- • Table-based binary structure
- • Single .ttf file contains all font data
- • Platform-independent format
Typical Characteristics:
- • File size: 150-300 KB (Latin fonts)
- • Excellent screen rendering at small sizes
- • Universal OS support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
- • Status: Current standard for desktop and web
PostScript Font Binary (PFB)
History and Philosophy:
- • Developed by Adobe as part of PostScript (1984)
- • Dominated professional publishing until late 1990s
- • Designed for PostScript printers and high-end output
- • Mathematical elegance prioritized over screen rendering
- • Required Adobe Type Manager (ATM) for screen display
Technical Foundation:
- • Cubic Bézier curves (3 control points, more elegant)
- • PostScript hinting (less sophisticated than TrueType)
- • Binary-encoded PostScript commands
- • Traditionally two files: PFB (outlines) + PFM/AFM (metrics)
- • Can also be PFA format (ASCII encoded)
Typical Characteristics:
- • File size: 40-120 KB (outline data only)
- • Superior print quality historically
- • Limited modern OS support
- • Status: Legacy format, replaced by OpenType
The Apple-Adobe Font Wars
Understanding the rivalry provides context for these formats:
- 1980s: Adobe's PostScript dominated, expensive licensing ($50K+ per printer)
- 1989: Apple creates TrueType to break Adobe's monopoly
- 1991: Microsoft adopts TrueType, ships with Windows 3.1
- 1990s: Professionals use PostScript, consumers use TrueType
- 1996: Adobe and Microsoft create OpenType, ending format wars
- Today: OpenType supports both TrueType and PostScript outlines
Technical Differences
Comprehensive Technical Comparison
| Feature | TTF | PFB |
|---|---|---|
| Curve Type | Quadratic Bézier | Cubic Bézier |
| Control Points | 2 per curve | 3 per curve (more elegant) |
| Hinting | TrueType (sophisticated) | PostScript (basic) |
| File Structure | Single .ttf file | Two files (PFB + PFM/AFM) |
| Screen Rendering | Excellent (designed for) | Good (with ATM) |
| Print Quality | Excellent | Excellent (originally better) |
| File Size | 150-300 KB | 40-120 KB (smaller) |
| Modern Support | Universal | Limited/legacy |
| Current Use | Desktop, web, mobile | Legacy documents |
Curve Mathematics: Quadratic vs Cubic
Quadratic Bézier (TTF):
- • Formula: B(t) = (1-t)²P₀ + 2(1-t)tP₁ + t²P₂
- • Two points (start, end) + one control point
- • Simpler mathematics, faster calculation
- • May require more curve segments for complex shapes
- • Easier to hint for screen rendering
Cubic Bézier (PFB/PostScript):
- • Formula: B(t) = (1-t)³P₀ + 3(1-t)²tP₁ + 3(1-t)t²P₂ + t³P₃
- • Two points (start, end) + two control points
- • More elegant, fewer segments for complex curves
- • Better mathematical precision
- • Standard in professional design tools (Illustrator, Bezier curves)
Practical impact: Both produce excellent results; difference is mostly mathematical elegance vs simplicity.
Hinting Approaches
TrueType Hinting:
- • Complete programming language for glyph adjustment
- • Can specify exact pixel positions at different sizes
- • Very powerful but complex to create manually
- • Produces crisp rendering at small sizes (8-16px)
- • Why TrueType won for screen use
PostScript Hinting:
- • Simpler hint system focused on stem widths
- • Global hints apply to entire font
- • Less control over individual glyph rendering
- • Good for print, acceptable for screen with ATM
- • Easier to create but less precise
File Structure Differences
TTF Single File:
- • All data in one .ttf file
- • Table-based structure (glyf, loca, head, hhea, etc.)
- • Simple installation: drop one file in Fonts folder
PFB Two-File System:
- • PFB file: Binary outline data (curves, hints)
- • PFM/AFM file: Metrics (advance widths, kerning)
- • Both files required for proper function
- • Installation complexity led to TrueType preference
Platform and Software Compatibility
Operating System Support
| Platform | TTF | PFB | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Windows 11/10 | ✓ | ✗ | No PostScript support |
| Windows 7/XP | ✓ | ~ | With ATM Light |
| macOS (Modern) | ✓ | ~ | Limited, prefers OTF |
| Linux | ✓ | ~ | Depends on config |
| iOS/Android | ✓ | ✗ | No PostScript |
PFB Modern Limitations
PostScript Type 1 (PFB) support has significantly declined:
- Windows: Never had native PFB support; required Adobe Type Manager (discontinued)
- macOS: Deprecated PostScript fonts in favor of TrueType/OpenType
- Adobe CC: Still supports PFB but recommends converting to OpenType
- Web browsers: Never supported PFB format
- Mobile: No PFB support on iOS or Android
- Recommendation: Convert PFB to OpenType (OTF with PostScript outlines)
Application Support
| Software | TTF | PFB |
|---|---|---|
| Adobe CC (Photoshop, InDesign) | ✓ | ~ |
| Microsoft Office | ✓ | ✗ |
| Web Browsers | ✓ | ✗ |
| Font Editors | ✓ | ✓ |
Quality and Rendering Comparison
Historical Quality Perceptions
1990s Perspective:
- • PostScript: "Professional quality" for printing
- • TrueType: "Consumer quality" for screen
- • Designers insisted on PostScript for serious work
- • Service bureaus required PostScript fonts
Modern Reality:
- • Both produce excellent print quality
- • TrueType superior for screen rendering
- • OpenType can contain either outline type
- • Quality differences are negligible today
Screen Rendering (72-96 DPI)
TrueType Advantages:
- • Sophisticated hinting produces crisp text at 8-16px
- • Designed specifically for pixel-grid alignment
- • Native OS rendering without additional software
- • Better readability at small sizes
PostScript Screen Quality:
- • Requires Adobe Type Manager for good rendering
- • Basic hinting less effective at small sizes
- • Can appear fuzzy compared to hinted TrueType
- • Good at larger sizes (18px+)
Print Quality (300-2400 DPI)
Modern truth: Both formats produce identical print quality at high resolutions.
Why PostScript was preferred historically:
- • PostScript printers had native PostScript interpreters
- • Cubic curves matched printer mathematics
- • Industry standard for professional publishing
- • Better workflow integration with design tools
Modern Reality:
- • Modern printers handle both formats equally well
- • RIP (Raster Image Processor) converts both to identical output
- • Print quality depends on font design, not format
- • TrueType in OpenType wrapper is professional standard
Use Cases and Recommendations
When to Use TTF (2025)
Use TTF For:
- • All modern projects: Desktop, web, mobile applications
- • Cross-platform work: Ensures universal compatibility
- • Screen-focused content: Websites, apps, presentations
- • Web font source: Convert TTF to WOFF2 for web deployment
- • General use: TTF is the universal standard today
When PFB Might Appear
You might encounter PFB fonts in:
- • Legacy documents: InDesign/QuarkXPress files from 1990s-2000s
- • Old font libraries: Professional font collections from pre-OpenType era
- • Archive projects: Historical print materials requiring exact reproduction
- • Specialized workflows: Very old PostScript printers
Recommendation: Convert PFB to OpenType (OTF) for modern use
Modern Standard: OpenType
OpenType (.otf) unified the font format wars:
- • Can contain either TrueType or PostScript outlines
- • Supports advanced typography features both formats lacked
- • Universal cross-platform compatibility
- • Preferred by professional foundries today
- • .ttf and .otf both use OpenType format (naming is historical)
Conversion Between Formats
PFB to TTF/OTF Conversion
Using FontForge:
- Install FontForge (free, open source)
- File → Open → Select PFB file (automatically finds PFM if present)
- File → Generate Fonts
- Select "TrueType" or "OpenType (CFF)" format
- Note: Converts PostScript curves to TrueType curves (approximation)
Quality note: Curve conversion from cubic to quadratic may add points but maintains visual fidelity.
Conversion Limitations
- Curve approximation: Cubic to quadratic conversion adds control points (more data, same appearance)
- Hinting loss: PostScript hints don't translate to TrueType; may need re-hinting
- File size increase: TTF may be 20-40% larger due to extra curve points
- Better option: Convert PFB to OpenType with PostScript outlines (preserves curves)
Recommended Workflow for Legacy PFB Fonts
- Identify PFB fonts: Check font folders and legacy project files
- Verify licensing: Ensure you have rights to convert
- Convert to OpenType (CFF): Preserves PostScript outlines, best quality
- Alternative: Convert to TTF: If universal compatibility needed
- Test thoroughly: Compare rendering to original
- Update documents: Replace PFB references with OTF/TTF
- Archive originals: Keep PFB files as backup
Summary: TTF vs PFB
TTF and PFB represent the historic Apple-Adobe font format rivalry. TTF uses quadratic Bézier curves with sophisticated hinting optimized for screen rendering, winning consumer markets through OS bundling. PFB uses cubic Bézier curves with simpler hinting, dominating professional publishing until OpenType emerged. Both produce excellent print quality today, though TTF is superior for screens. PFB support has declined dramatically—modern systems prefer TTF/OpenType.
For all modern projects, use TTF or OpenType formats. PFB is legacy technology requiring conversion for compatibility. The format wars ended with OpenType (1996), which can contain either TrueType or PostScript outlines, unifying the best of both technologies. Convert legacy PFB fonts to OpenType (OTF) with PostScript outlines to preserve original curves, or to TTF for maximum compatibility. TTF is the universal standard; PFB is historical artifact from desktop publishing's early days.
Written & Verified by
Sarah Mitchell
Product Designer, Font Specialist
TTF vs PFB FAQs
Common questions answered about this font format comparison