On Monday 31 January 2011 13:24:46 Barry McKenna wrote: > On 1/31/2011 9:57 AM, John Culleton wrote: > > On Saturday 29 January 2011 15:59:47 Barry McKenna wrote: > >>>>> John, > >>>>> > >>>>> It may be a particular Windows/Scribus/pdf issue with my > >>>>> system/HP 1018 - or not, I don't know - but the Scribus > >>>>> printed output looks distinctly different from the Tex and > >>>>> Open Writer; the same as my Scribus (1.3.9) to pdf output > >>>>> when I _don't_ "Embed PDF": The printed output looks a bit > >>>>> jagged under a loop as when the font is converted to > >>>>> outlines. > >>>>> > >>>>> Barry > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> scribus mailing list > >>>>> scribus at lists.scribus.info > >>>>> http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus > >>>> > >>>> It is possible that I messed up. I'll check. But the issue I > >>>> am addressing is the layout of the text, hyphenation, space > >>>> between words and the like, and not the typeface as such. > >>> > >>> I blew those samples up in Acrobat Reader to 800% and the text > >>> was perfectly smooth. No jaggies. Try AR instead of your loupe. > >> > >> John, > >> > >> It's not that important, but I'm not talking about screen > >> pdf. My bottom line concern is how my book/output looks when > >> printed and that's how I test. The Scribus page printed > >> looks exactly like test pages that I print that look a bit > >> jaggy and when I send the test pdfs to my local printer he > >> tells me that Adobe Illustrator tells him that my font was > >> not embedded and the text was converted to outlines. > >> > >> Again, perhaps it something particular to how my system > >> interprets pdfs and how it converts sla to pdf. > >> > >> In my Acrobat Reader 9.4.1 the text looks just a little bit > >> softer than most of the others. > >> > >> As for justification, on both the larger width and the short > >> line, I see that Scribus comes in just a bit behind the Tex. > >> > >> Barry > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> scribus mailing list > >> scribus at lists.scribus.info > >> http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus > > > > I went over both my original pdf from Scribus and the finished > > booklet which is created with pdftex and imported pdf files. > > > > It is possible that Illustrator is the problem. I can't imagine > > what work flow for a book interior would require Illustrator. The > > original pdf from Scribus and the copy imported into my > > compare.pdf both show the embedded fonts. Printed at 600 dpi on > > my old B/W Laser they show minimal roughness under a magnifying > > glass. Printed on my new color laser at 3600 Ret (whatever that > > means) I see no roughness. > > > > But the product is the pdf. If I can see no roughness at maximum > > resolution in Acrobat Reader then there is no roughness inherent > > in the pdf. The pdf merely tells the printer to print this letter > > from this font at this size. If however it is processed through > > other software that converts it to bitmap then some roughness > > may appear. > > > > This happened with the original Masterson pages. He did not send > > me a pdf at 5.5 x8.5 but rather one at full page size. I had to > > trim it in Gimp and export it as png which is bitmapped. > > John, > > My printer only opened the pdf in Adobe Illustrator to get > more information about the file. He did nothing in terms of > changing the file. > > And I agree that the output device used to print fonts which > have been outlined can make a significant difference but > still not be the essential factor. > > While the pdf with outlined fonts looked a bit rough with my > 600dpi HP 1018, the same pdf printed and compared with a > version that was not outlined - both on a Xerox Docucolor > Postscript 3 600dpi device - looked almost exactly the same, > in terms of the text. However, the one pixel lines in the > pdf whose font had been outlined were still a bit broken up, > but not as bad as that from my HP 1018, which is one of the > most entry level lasers, but normally totally adequate for > my day to day needs. > > Also, I can almost always see a slight difference - at 100% > - from pdfs generated on my system when the fonts have been > outlined in comparison to a version of the same original > file when the fonts are embedded and not outlined. > > The essential point of this, as I see it, is that users > should be aware that any pdfs which are produced with > outlined fonts _may_ suffer from some loss of resolution, > either in the text or in the graphics, especially if their > graphics require _very fine lines_. And it may also be that > for some users, the difference might not be significant. > However, for my use, producing a book with many graphs with > fine lines with text, it turned out to be a major factor for me. > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > scribus mailing list > scribus at lists.scribus.info > http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus
-- Very good. However outlined fonts did not enter into compare.pdf. An updated version with more samples put together by Pete Masterson is available here: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/compare2.pdf John Culleton Create Book Covers with Scribus: http://www.booklocker.com/p/books/4055.html Typesetting and indexing http://wexfordpress.com book sales http://wexfordpress.net Free barcode: http://www.tux.org/~milgram/bookland/
