On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 00:37 (+0200), Hans Hagen via ntg-context wrote: > On 7/9/2026 9:30 PM, Jim Diamond via ntg-context wrote:
>> I would have guessed it was just a "me" problem with my archaic AR, but the >> unnamed person running Windows has (I presume) an up-to-date, >> as-good-as-it-gets version. So I'm not sure (older) applies here. > i actually don't know how old my acrobat is ... once it started offering to > make summaries of a pdf and/or do watever it likes with it i stopped > starting it up Maybe you can find an old version that doesn't do things like that, but not necessarily as old as this one: >> Maybe here: https://winworldpc.com/product/acrobat-reader/1 > oh, soo small ... Go on, give it a try. I know you want to. :-) >> The few times I bothered doing a comparison, AR rendered thin lines better >> than anything I put it up against. Another reason for me to keep using >> this archaic program. > so what is your screen resolution, 640x480 ? **sigh** so many people talk about the number of pixels and not the pixel density. 640x480 would look very sharp indeed on a 5cm x 3cm screen. >> My screen is about 141 DPI. Not super high-res, but a whole lot better >> than those "crimes against humanity" 96 DPI screens. > interesting is that 1920x1200 often (on windows) looks quite ok (but > depending on where i dock the laptop I have upto 4K so various resolutions > and sizes, these (even older) monitors run forever) How big is that screen? 12"? 17.3"? Most non-SPR'ed text looks "fine" on my (1920x1080) screen. But even at 141 DPI, SPR'ed text looks noticeably better to me. And, for reasons I don't understand (and maybe never will), Pagella looks awful in my ancient AR when it is not SPR'ed. Really awful. 7x13 X fonts from 1985 look better. Recently someone (another person who may not want his name connected to this thread) asked me about using Pagella for ANSS-CE. I could not understand why anyone would want that, because it looked so bad. But then I realized it looked bad in my AR when the page wasn't SPR'ed. >> In the most ideal world, ConTeXt would somehow trap evil images inside >> their own little sandbox, and not let their bad parts corrupt the rest of >> the document. However, in the world we live in, that may not be possible. >> So I have no reason to think ConTeXt is misbehaving. > You can always force a good old 320 horizontal pixel resolution experience: > \startMPpage > triplet bm ; bm := loadbytemapfromfile(3, "PageLayout.png") ; > lmt_filter [ > source = 3, > target = 4, > % filter = "sharpen:5", > % filter = "gaussianblur", > % filter = "sharpen:5,gaussianblur", > filter = "gaussianblur,sharpen:5", > ] ; > draw bytemap 4 xsized 20mm ; > \stopMPpage > (and then spend an evening writing your own filters that you can plug in) I can't possible imagine why I would ever want to, and yet I'll keep this message just in case that day comes. Jim ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : [email protected] / https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman3/lists/ntg-context.ntg.nl webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / https://context.aanhet.net (mirror) archive : https://github.com/contextgarden/context wiki : https://wiki.contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
