On 23 Sep 2007 at 22:09, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 23.09.2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The example you posted looks like the quality display produced by > > "Compile Postscript Listing" rather than print-to-Postscript. What was > > your printing sequence from Finale? And what printer driver were you > > printing to? > > No, he just used very thin lines. If you print this example it will look > pretty awful, at least to my eyes. If you look at the example at high > magnification you will still see that the lines don't anti-alias, and > display slightly different thicknesses.
Huh? Viewed in what software? When I look at the example at 100% and 2400% (or any other magnification I choose) in Acrobat Reader 8 none of the staff lines are aliased. NONE. True, it will not print well, but if you're producing your PDF for online use, this seems like a good solution to me. It also discourages people from printing it and using it. But no, it's not a good solution for PDFs that are intended to be printed. Of course, this just shows the inherent conflict at the heart of all PDFs: The requirements of onscreen and printed output are often in severe conflict with each other. I have always felt that PDF works much better for printed output than for onscreen display (fonts for print are usually too small in relation to page size for ease of use on a screen, unless you have one of those portrait-mode monitors). This is the same problem I always had with the Sibelius page display for editing (which has been eliminated as a problem in Sib5), that what I needed to see all at once was the whole page, or just the part I was editing, and moving from system to system caused it to jump around. And viewing a full page at a time everything was too small. Anyway, I'm just blathering now, so I'll stop! :) -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
