From: Clay Leeds (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 13:26:04 PST
Clay Leeds wrote:
> Nikolai Grigoriev wrote:
>> JPEG is generally not the best format for line art containing
>> sharp edges - it tends to create transition effects ("JPEG artifacts").
>> Edge fuzziness is inherent for the type of compression used in JPEG;
>> there's nothing to do. You may consider other, non-lossy formats
>> instead. For example, PNG is equally efficient with XEP: unless
>> there are some special features like gamma, interlacing, or alpha
>> the data are copied transparently from the input file to the resulting
>> PDF, generating no overhead even for big images.
>> Best regards,
>> Nikolai Grigoriev
> I had some problems with "fuzziness" with my JPG images. Then I realized
> that I was printing at +300dpi, and the JPG had a 72dpi resolution. I
> changed my JPG to 300dpi, and much of the fuzziness went away. That
> said, TIFF or PNG might improve the clarity, although SVG might be even
> better (I think SVG is supported by XEP?).
I should add, that I had to convert my original vector/EPS drawing to
300dpi. Starting from a 72dpi and moving to 300dpi shrinks the size of
your image by 50% or more (garbage in, garbage out ;-). I had to start
with a larger version of my logo, then convert to 300dpi. I hope this is
relevant to the discussion and helps!
Web Maestro Clay
-- Clay Leeds - firstname.lastname@example.org Web Developer - Medata, Inc. - http://www.medata.com PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc ------------------- (*) To unsubscribe, send a message with words 'unsubscribe xep-support' in the body of the message to email@example.com from the address you are subscribed from. (*) By using the Service, you expressly agree to these Terms of Service http://www.renderx.com/tos.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 24 2003 - 13:18:57 PST