biswa@hoff.berkeley.edu (Biswa Ranjan Ghosh) (01/25/91)
Considering the low street price of the Deskwriter and the claim of 300dpi resolution, I have been considering it very seriously recently. The other night I looked at some output on my friend's deskwriter and was quite disappointed with the output, which was just text in 12-point Times. The output looked ragged. Not really bad, but noticeable poorer than the Apple Laserwriter at work, which is postscript, but also 300 dpi. I know ATM is good for smoothing really large fonts, but does anyone have first-hand experience with it, for improving deskwriter output at small fonts like 6-14 point? Does it help at all? If the output I saw is as good as it gets, I am inclined to wait until postscript printers become affordable. Would appreciate any advice/tips! -Biswa Ghosh
gaynor@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (01/25/91)
In article <10433@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> biswa@hoff.berkeley.edu (Biswa Ranjan Ghosh) writes: >Considering the low street price of the Deskwriter and the claim of >300dpi resolution, I have been considering it very seriously recently. >The other night I looked at some output on my friend's deskwriter and >was quite disappointed with the output, which was just text in 12-point >Times. The output looked ragged. Not really bad, but noticeable poorer >than the Apple Laserwriter at work, which is postscript, but also >300 dpi. Your statement doesn't make it clear if your friend was running ATM or not. If he was not running ATM, you may want to check that the Deskwriter outline font files are installed in the proper sub-folder in the System Folder. Otherwise it will simply optimize an existing bitmap, often with poor results. If he -is- running ATM, you may want to be certain that he has the Postscipt files for the typeface he is printing available to ATM in the System Folder. Otherwise, optimization again. >I know ATM is good for smoothing really large fonts, but does anyone have >first-hand experience with it, for improving deskwriter output at small >fonts like 6-14 point? Does it help at all? ATM is, in essence, Adobe's font rasterizer taken straight from the full-fledged Postscipt<tm> interpreter. It recognizes and understands Type 1 Postscipt font files, which contain hinting to optimize printing small point sizes at "low" resolution (300dpi). So, yes, ATM with the appropriate font files can make a huge difference. But don't fall into the trap that I have seen many users fall into - beleiving that ATM will work on -all- your fonts, whether you have files for them or not. You must have the postscipt file of the typeface in order for ATM to work with the typeface. Otherwise, it's just another bitmap. (I can't count the number of user I've had to explain the difference between Bitmaps and Outlines... <sigh>) I've played with the DeskWriter for awhile. It's a nice printer, even better if you're using ATM. But remember, it doesn't do Postscipt graphics - only QuickDraw. -- Jim Gaynor - Systems Analyst 1 + "This is Serious. He is Lost. The Ohio State University ACS-FM-OCES | We must begin the Search at once." gaynor@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.ed | -Rabbit, from gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu + "The House at Pooh Corner"
ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) (01/26/91)
In <10433@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> biswa@hoff.berkeley.edu (Biswa Ranjan Ghosh) writes: >Considering the low street price of the Deskwriter and the claim of >300dpi resolution, I have been considering it very seriously recently. >The other night I looked at some output on my friend's deskwriter and >was quite disappointed with the output, which was just text in 12-point >Times. The output looked ragged. Not really bad, but noticeable poorer >than the Apple Laserwriter at work, which is postscript, but also >300 dpi. >I know ATM is good for smoothing really large fonts, but does anyone have >first-hand experience with it, for improving deskwriter output at small >fonts like 6-14 point? Does it help at all? If the output I saw is as good >as it gets, I am inclined to wait until postscript printers become >affordable. My Deskwriter is quite nice, and I use it a great deal. It by no means compares with my laserwriter. However, bang for the buck is definately on the side of the HP. With ATM I can get fairly good TEXT output. However, this does not improve the quality of my graphics. Remember, we are using Quickdraw here. I would not hesitate to send a letter printed from my Deskjet, but I would probably go to the trouble of Laser printing a resume. And, yes the Deskwriter can be quite fuzzy on some applications, I find the quality of the paper makes a great deal of difference. -- Alex Jauch *ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu |"If all you have is a hammer, then the whole* *ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu |world looks like a nail" -- Stolen *
djbailey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com (01/28/91)
I have a Deskwriter and Adobe Type Manager (1.01). I get very good text output from it using either the printer fonts or ATM fonts. The kind of paper you use makes a big difference. I use Eton Techniclear when I want something to look really nice. I am considering getting Ultrascript or Freedom of the Press which, I believe, will let me do postscript graphics on the Deskwriter. I think either package would take the place of ATM as far as printing is concerned. I don't think they affect the screen appearence. So far, I'm not getting much benefit from ATM because I tend to use the printer fonts. I am also thinking about purchasing the additional Deskwriter fonts but that may be a waste of money if I get one of the packages mentioned above.
peter@viewlogic.COM (Peter Colby) (01/28/91)
In article <0B010004.8cn5cd@outpost.UUCP>, peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) writes: |> |> In article <0E010009.ga3tkq@stx.UUCP>, costello@stx.UUCP (Michael E. Costello) writes: |> > |> > |> > In article <27A0D88E.25278@ics.uci.edu>, ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) writes: |> > > >I know ATM is good for smoothing really large fonts, but does anyone have |> > > >first-hand experience with it, for improving deskwriter output at small |> > > >fonts like 6-14 point? |> > |> > ATM doesn't help *any* printer in that size range. The indifference point |> > between having specific bitmaps versus letting ATM do its thing is right |> > around 14 points. |> |> Are you sure about this? |> |> My understanding is that it might very help even with these smaller |> point sizes. If you have a 300dpi printer and are printing a 10 point |> font, say, QuickDraw will use the 40 point font on the printer since |> it has the same number of dots. Since ATM generates any size bitmap |> it can improve he output (how many people have 30 point fonts. |> |> In fact ATM could help you out even on an ImageWriter. It would let you |> get rid of all thouse double bitmaps taking up space on you disk and |> still guarantee that you have the best rendering of a font available |> for that resolution device - for ATM fonts at least. My experience with ATM 2.0 agrees with M. Costello. When I got ATM I followed the directions and only installed the 12 point bitmap fonts. Where ATM actually seems to fall down at smaller point sizes is in the character spacing. My attempts at generating 10 point sizes were ghastly. It occurs to me however, that I have tried neither using my Imagewriter (I was editing a document and never printed it), nor did I try using fractional widths (which isn't supposed to work with the IW anyway). Peter Colby -- (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O) !the doctor is out! (O) (0) peter@viewlogic.com (0) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)
derosa@motcid.UUCP (John DeRosa) (01/29/91)
costello@stx.UUCP (Michael E. Costello) writes: >ATM doesn't help *any* printer in that size range. The indifference point >between having specific bitmaps versus letting ATM do its thing is right >around 14 points. IMHO, I have found noticeable improvement down to 7 points in some fonts (helvetica). Improvements down to 12 points have been noticed in Zapf Chancery. This was on an ImagewriterII. Obviously, the larger the sizes the more the improvement. Also fonts in italics are greatly help at nearly any point size. -- = John DeRosa, Motorola, Inc, Cellular Infrastructure Group = = e-mail: ...uunet!motcid!derosaj, motcid!derosaj@uunet.uu.net = = Applelink: N1111 = =I do not hold by employer responsible for any information in this message =
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan28.143620.6377@viewlogic.com>, peter@viewlogic.COM (Peter Colby) writes: > > > In article <0B010004.8cn5cd@outpost.UUCP>, peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) writes: > > My experience with ATM 2.0 agrees with M. Costello. When I got > ATM I followed the directions and only installed the 12 point bitmap fonts. > Where ATM actually seems to fall down at smaller point sizes is in the > character spacing. My attempts at generating 10 point sizes were ghastly. > It occurs to me however, that I have tried neither using my > Imagewriter (I was editing a document and never printed it), nor did I > try using fractional widths (which isn't supposed to work with the IW > anyway). > Peter Colby Right, nothing but hand tuned fonts look decent ON THE SCREEN. 72dpi just isn't enough resolution to do outline fonts justice. But when printing (at 150 dpi on an imagewriter or 300dpi on whatever) ATM should help out since quickdraw will use twice or four times the size fonts for printing. -- michael -- Michael Peirce -- outpost!peirce@claris.com -- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place -- Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California 95117 -- & Consulting -- (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE
lee@quincy.cs.umass.edu (Peter Lee) (01/29/91)
In article <0E010009.ga3tkq@stx.UUCP> costello@stx.UUCP (Michael E. Costello) writes: From: costello@stx.UUCP (Michael E. Costello) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Date: 26 Jan 91 19:28:23 GMT Reply-To: costello@world.std.com Organization: BCS*Mac X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.0.2 In article <27A0D88E.25278@ics.uci.edu>, ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) writes: > >I know ATM is good for smoothing really large fonts, but does anyone have > >first-hand experience with it, for improving deskwriter output at small > >fonts like 6-14 point? ATM doesn't help *any* printer in that size range. The indifference point between having specific bitmaps versus letting ATM do its thing is right around 14 points. ==>Michael Costello costello@world.std.com ==>BCS*Mac, The Boston Computer Society Macintosh User Group ==>P.O. Box 2591; Woburn, MA 01888 617-631-8188 I think that statement is a bit misleading -- ATM won't help much when displaying 6-14 point text on-screen, and in fact, hand-tuned bitmaps will probably look significantly better. I can say from experience though that the printed quality of smaller sizes (I've only played with 9 point and up, but I suspect it applies equally well to smaller sizes) is noticeably better with ATM than without, even with 4x bitmaps installed. I would speculate that this is because the Deskwriter is a 300dpi printer, whereas bitmaps are 72 dpi, so a reduced 4x bitmap is really a 288 dpi bitmap represented in 300 dots per inch, where ATM will create a true 300 dpi bitmap. -- |- Peter E. Lee, Staff Assistant -| | Software Development Lab at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst | | lee@cs.umass.edu or Fuligin@umass.bitnet or (413) 256-1329 | "When you expect whistles, it's flutes. When you expect flutes, it's whistles"
russ@convex.COM (Russell Donnan) (01/30/91)
In article <0E010009.ga3tkq@stx.UUCP> costello@world.std.com writes: >In article <27A0D88E.25278@ics.uci.edu>, ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) writes: >> >I know ATM is good for smoothing really large fonts, but does anyone have >> >first-hand experience with it, for improving deskwriter output at small >> >fonts like 6-14 point? > >ATM doesn't help *any* printer in that size range. The indifference point >between having specific bitmaps versus letting ATM do its thing is right >around 14 points. As an avid user of ATM, I'll have to disagree there. Unless your printer has its own built-in bit-map fonts, you will be able to see a dramatic difference even in a 9-point font. 10 and 12 point bitmap fonts are downright ugly at 300 dpi. Perhaps you mean that ATM won't help you beyond 14 point if you are using a dot-matrix printer? DEATH to the jaggies! -- Russ Donnan, (214) 497-4778, russ@convex.com Convex Computer Corporation, 3000 Waterview Parkway, Richardson, TX "vi: the look-and-feel of Hollerith cards, but without the added bulk!"
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (01/30/91)
In article <0B010004.st0u4u@outpost.UUCP>, peirce@outpost (Michael Peirce) writes: >Right, nothing but hand tuned fonts look decent ON THE SCREEN. 72dpi >just isn't enough resolution to do outline fonts justice. Not so. I use ATM 2.0 with Adobe's LucidaSans at 11pt. all the time, and I think it actually looks better than the 12pt. bitmap. Of course, it helps that it's a sans-serif font, but I'm sometimes pleasantly surprised at how well ATM does when rending fonts on screen. -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." baumgart@esquire.dpw.com | cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Letterman