|
|
Posted by Jim Higson on 12/22/35 11:49
dorayme wrote:
> In article <QK6dnTFfP-fK-RzZRVnytg@eclipse.net.uk>,
> Jim Higson <jh@333.org> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>> > Perhaps you are
>> > right? Acrobat does not handle this anti-aliasing (if it is that)
>> > and Preview does.
>>
>> Yeah, if a line is too thin to cover the width of an entire pixel,
>> antialiasing is the answer. It's basically the same as rendering it at a
>> larger size, and then scaling down with interpolation.
>
> Yes, this sounds like what is going on. The Guardian either does
> not know about this or are not prepared to give advice...
> (perhaps they have commercial reasons not to badmouth Adobe?)
Well, antialiasing wouldn't be needed if they just made their lines a little
thicker so they fill a whole pixel at sensible levels of zoom! I'm sure
this is *easily* within their powers.
I suppose this being the Guardian though, they're more interested in the
look on the printed page. Can I really be the only person who prefers the
less colourfull, non-design award winning old broadsheet over the fancy
new "Berliner" format? When newspapers come on electronic paper I hope
there's some equivalent thing to overriding their CSS.
> They are aware of the problem. And cheerfully note that the
> problem is not evident in printing. I rarely print them. I use
> the spare blank side of old A4's that have been printed with a
> nice big grid and jot the numbers down with a pencil. It is not
> hard to guess the lines...
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|