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)