Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!milo.mcs.anl.gov!atlantis.ees.anl.gov!korp From: korp@atlantis.ees.anl.gov (Peter Korp) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript Subject: Re: Doubling Font sizes and Shrinking Photographically Message-ID: <1990Nov14.054847.771@mcs.anl.gov> Date: 14 Nov 90 05:48:47 GMT References: <2686@ux.acs.umn.edu> <1990Nov13.220222.14142@ico.isc.com> Sender: news@mcs.anl.gov Organization: Advanced Computer Application Center, Argonne National Laboratory Lines: 23 Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.ees.anl.gov In article <1990Nov13.220222.14142@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: [stuff deleted] >Incidentally, one of the reasons for not doing this in PostScript fonts >(aside from the obvious big one of cost!) is that there's a sort of >nebulous relationship between the point size used to scale the font and >what it means in final output...consider > 0.5 dup scale > /Times-Roman findfont 16 scalefont setfont >If there were multiple designs depending on size, should this use the 16-pt >artwork (the requested size for scalefont) or the 8-pt artwork (the actual >output size)? Pardon my stupidity, but now that you bring that point up which artwork does PostScript really use? I've used this stuff for years and never thought about this. >-- >Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 > Cellular phones: more deadly than marijuana. Peter