Xref: utzoo comp.lang.postscript:2934 comp.text:5079 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!jarthur!dhosek From: dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Donald Hosek) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript,comp.text Subject: Re: TeX Postscript Fonts (after the format is public) Message-ID: <2097@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> Date: 25 Sep 89 01:19:53 GMT References: <6247@sybase.sybase.com> Reply-To: dhosek@jarthur.UUCP (Donald Hosek) Followup-To: comp.lang.postscript Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA Lines: 22 In article <6247@sybase.sybase.com> forrest@sybase.com writes: >The news is out the Adobe will release a lot of information that >wasn't public before. Here's hopping that all this will finally >result in Postscript format cm fonts so we can quit wasting time >sending bitmaps. At resolutions under ~700dpi, it is not as economical as you might think to use PS outlines rather than bitmaps. If one uses compressed bitmaps, it is very difficult to have outline descriptions which take less time to transmit unless one has a document with many scalings of the same font. Also, I believe that the rasterization algorithm used by PostScript is (even with hinting) not as good as that obtained with a well-designed Metafont. This is not to say that PS outlines are thorougly useless, but I certainly don't think that they are a match for bitmaps with the current PostScript technology. -dh -- Don Hosek | Internet: DHOSEK@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU | Bitnet: DHOSEK@HMCVAX.BITNET | Phone: 714-920-0655 (I used to be a Mudder, but I got better)