Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9419D334@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:11 +0100 In-Reply-To: CA_ROWLEY%acsvax.ou.ac.uk@uk.ac.essex.mailhost's message of Tue, 7Jan 92 23:12:00 GM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9419D334" Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: re: fontdef issues Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 12:56:03 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Adrian F Clark" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 518 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9419D334 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have read the magnified/true-size discussion with some interest and thought I'd put in my farthing's worth. If one prepares a reasonable amount of text (using TeX _and_ LaTeX) using magnified and design-size CM fonts (prepared using Sauter's interpolation scheme if necessary) and compares them, one finds that, not surprisingly, the use of design-size fonts produces better results. I've done blind (though not double-blind) tests on both experienced and inexperienced users of TeX _and other typesetting systems_, and the results are quite consistent. Incidentally, a similar comparison of CM with PostScript (Times-Roman) yielded a majority in favour of PS. However, my guinea pigs are used to seeing LaserWriter output (though not typeset so well!) and they are therefore probably adjusted to PS fonts already. And, of course, this was all done at 300dpi; it would be nice to perform a similar test using phototypesetter output. The above would suggest that design-size fonts are to be preferred for both TeX and LaTeX: a magnified font is definitely a poor substitute for a design-size font. However, magnified fonts _do_ have a place, as Chris Rowley recently pointed out -- when using photo-reduction in an attempt to get improved resolution. My opinion (with which I expect most people will disagree) is that the concepts of design size and magnification should be separated; they have only been bundled to date due to historical precident (or maybe lack of disc space: remember .VNT files?). It is quite reasonable to wish to typeset a document in 12-point fonts that have been scaled up by (say) magstep1 in anticipation of being photo-reduced; indeed, I have prepared camera-ready copy for conference papers in precisely this way. As things stand, this is quite easy to do with plain TeX, since one ends up loading most of the fonts oneself anyway, but not with LaTeX. Of course, implementing such a scheme might prove very difficult in practice... .Adrian ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9419D334 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: re: fontdef issues

I have read the magnified/true-size discussion with = some interest and
thought I'd put in my farthing's worth.

If one prepares a reasonable amount of text (using TeX = _and_ LaTeX)
using magnified and design-size CM fonts (prepared = using Sauter's
interpolation scheme if necessary) and compares them, = one finds that,
not surprisingly, the use of design-size fonts = produces better
results.  I've done blind (though not = double-blind) tests on both
experienced and inexperienced users of TeX _and other = typesetting
systems_, and the results are quite = consistent.

Incidentally, a similar comparison of CM with = PostScript (Times-Roman)
yielded a majority in favour of PS.  However, my = guinea pigs are used
to seeing LaserWriter output (though not typeset so = well!) and they
are therefore probably adjusted to PS fonts = already.  And, of course,
this was all done at 300dpi; it would be nice to = perform a similar
test using phototypesetter output.

The above would suggest that design-size fonts are to = be preferred for
both TeX and LaTeX: a magnified font is definitely a = poor substitute
for a design-size font.  However, magnified = fonts _do_ have a place,
as Chris Rowley recently pointed out -- when using = photo-reduction in
an attempt to get improved resolution.

My opinion (with which I expect most people will = disagree) is that the
concepts of design size and magnification should be = separated; they
have only been bundled to date due to historical = precident (or maybe
lack of disc space: remember .VNT files?).  It = is quite reasonable to
wish to typeset a document in 12-point fonts that = have been scaled up
by (say) magstep1 in anticipation of being = photo-reduced; indeed, I
have prepared camera-ready copy for conference papers = in precisely
this way.  As things stand, this is quite easy = to do with plain TeX,
since one ends up loading most of the fonts oneself = anyway, but not
with LaTeX.

Of course, implementing such a scheme might prove very = difficult in
practice...

.Adrian

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9419D334--