lorner@csuchico.edu (Lance Orner) (05/25/90)
What are some of the differences of using an Imagewriter LQ as compared to a standard Imagewriter? I know the print resolution is better, but do you need anything special, like special fonts and the like? Thanks. -- --Lance M. Orner | Without the software to run the California St. Univ., Chico | hardware, you get _nowhere_! lorner @ csuchico.edu | --unknown cartoon
jones@optilink.UUCP (Marvin Jones) (05/31/90)
In article <1990May24.205706.6671@csuchico.edu>, lorner@csuchico.edu (Lance Orner) writes: > What are some of the differences of using an Imagewriter LQ as compared to > a standard Imagewriter? I know the print resolution is better, but do > you need anything special, like special fonts and the like? > lorner @ csuchico.edu | --unknown cartoon The primary difference is that a collection of large scale fonts is required. Much like the IW2 looks for 2X size fonts when asked to print in "Best" quality, the IWLQ looks for 4X sized fonts in order to utilize its Best quality output. Thus, in addition to having a set of regular sized fonts (9-18 pt) for draft and better printing, you also need to have the same fonts in 36, 40, 48, and 72 pt. for the LQ output. Makes for some _big_ systems!. -- === Marvin Jones === Optilink Corp. === Petaluma, CA === 707.795.9444 X206 === === UUCP: {uunet, tekbspa, pyramid, pixar}!optilink!jones ==================== === CIS: 71320,3637 or 71320.3637@compuserve.com === AOL: mjones =============
fdm@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM (Frank D. Malczewski) (05/31/90)
In article <3692@optilink.UUCP> jones@optilink.UUCP (Marvin Jones) writes: >In article <1990May24.205706.6671@csuchico.edu>, lorner@csuchico.edu (Lance Orner) writes: >> What are some of the differences of using an Imagewriter LQ as compared to >> a standard Imagewriter? I know the print resolution is better, but do >> you need anything special, like special fonts and the like? > >> lorner @ csuchico.edu | --unknown cartoon > >The primary difference is that a collection of large scale fonts is required. >Much like the IW2 looks for 2X size fonts when asked to print in "Best" >quality, the IWLQ looks for 4X sized fonts in order to utilize its Best >quality output. Thus, in addition to having a set of regular sized fonts >(9-18 pt) for draft and better printing, you also need to have the same fonts >in 36, 40, 48, and 72 pt. for the LQ output. > >Makes for some _big_ systems!. > > >-- > === Marvin Jones === Optilink Corp. === Petaluma, CA === 707.795.9444 X206 === > === UUCP: {uunet, tekbspa, pyramid, pixar}!optilink!jones ==================== > === CIS: 71320,3637 or 71320.3637@compuserve.com === AOL: mjones ============= Granted that this is one approach to making the Imagewriter LQ somewhat useful, an even more useful approach is to use Adobe Type Manager to eliminate the need to have the various sized fonts, and to allow a wider range of fonts than you are likely to find available in LQ-happy sizes. Ignore what MacUser (6/90) recommends for the LQ (i.e., bitmapped fonts, no ATM); the author of that article obviously has never looked very carefully at the output from the Apple-supplied fonts: they are thicker, and thus less attractive, they are (as the author correctly states) not very maleable when converted into "italics" or "bold", and you are limited to a few sizes. Going to ATM, you have several fonts to choose from, depending on which ones you want to purchase, you can use just about any size you want, as well as style, and it comes out looking just fine; add TypeAlign, and you are able to get some interesting (although perhaps unneeded) effects above and beyond anything that you would get with bitmapped fonts. If it weren't for ATM, the LQ would be just an oversized, overnoisy, virtually useless piece of crap. With ATM, however, it is almost worth something... --Frank Malczewski (fdm@wlv.imsd.contel.com) (malczews@nunki.usc.edu)
austing@Apple.COM (Glenn L. Austin) (05/31/90)
jones@optilink.UUCP (Marvin Jones) writes: >In article <1990May24.205706.6671@csuchico.edu>, lorner@csuchico.edu (Lance Orner) writes: >> What are some of the differences of using an Imagewriter LQ as compared to >> a standard Imagewriter? I know the print resolution is better, but do >> you need anything special, like special fonts and the like? >The primary difference is that a collection of large scale fonts is required. >Much like the IW2 looks for 2X size fonts when asked to print in "Best" >quality, the IWLQ looks for 4X sized fonts in order to utilize its Best >quality output. Thus, in addition to having a set of regular sized fonts >(9-18 pt) for draft and better printing, you also need to have the same fonts >in 36, 40, 48, and 72 pt. for the LQ output. >Makes for some _big_ systems!. The IWLQ only needs 3X sized fonts - the LWIISC uses 4X. However, I replaced 3+MB of fonts with 1-2MB of outline fonts and ATM, and I even had more fonts than I started with! The LQ is faster, about the same noise (now), and has *MUCH* better quality than the IW2. The only disadvantage is the disk space used by the 3x fonts... (that I can see, you see, I own one) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Glenn L. Austin | "Turn too soon, run out of room, | | Auto Racing Enthusiast and | Turn too late, much better fate" | | Communications Toolbox Hacker | - Jim Russell Racing School Instructors | | Apple Computer, Inc. | "Drive slower, race faster" - D. Waltrip | | Internet: austing@apple.com |-------------------------------------------| | AppleLink: AUSTIN.GLENN | All opinions stated above are mine -- | | Bellnet: (408) 974-0876 | who else would want them? | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------