Fourier Transform (super-fancy) “f”?

What's a "fancy" f I can use to denote a Fourier transform?
(I mean something fancier than what \mathcal{F} provides.)

-
I don't know how Fourier transforms are usually denoted, but another way to get a fancier F than \mathcal provides is to use the \mathscr command provided by the mathrsfs package. –  Charles Staats Dec 8 '12 at 4:57
@CharlesStaats: Ahh, that looks even better! (Correction: at least it does on Xetex, which I use locally. But apparently the renderer I used online for my answer below shows the same rendering for my answer as Xetex does for your answer. But it's definitely not any worse than mathfrak!) Please post it as an answer! :) –  Mehrdad Dec 8 '12 at 5:05

One way to get a fancier F than \mathcal provides is to use the \mathscr command provided by the mathrsfs package:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{mathrsfs,amsmath}   %The amsmath package is included for \xrightarrow
\begin{document}
$\delta(t) \xrightarrow{\mathscr{F}} 1$
\end{document}


gives

To compare other fancy Fs: \mathfrak{F} from the amssymb package gives

\mathcal gives

-

I found \mathfrak{F} looks decent.

$\mathfrak{F}$

-
The image doesn't show \mathfrak{F} –  egreg Dec 8 '12 at 10:03
@egreg: I got it from here: texify.com/img/%5CLARGE%5C%21%5Cmathfrak%20F.gif –  Mehrdad Dec 8 '12 at 10:07
Well, that's a script alphabet, not Fraktur. –  egreg Dec 8 '12 at 10:14
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. –  Masroor Jun 16 '14 at 2:39
@mma I am not very glad with the short answer as well, but look at the edit history. It didn't bother anybody for 1.5 years. –  Johannes_B Jun 16 '14 at 6:39