Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!olivea!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!compuram!pgd
From: pgd@bbt.se
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Doubling Font sizes and Shrinking Photographically
Message-ID: <1990Nov17.072845.7873@bbt.se>
Date: 17 Nov 90 07:28:45 GMT
References: <48104@cornell.UUCP> <19458@oolong.la.locus.com> <11882@scorn.sco.COM>
Organization: .
Lines: 22

In article <11882@scorn.sco.COM> bobs (Bob Stayton) writes:
>
>We have done a lot of "over size" printing on standard 300
>dpi printers and then reducing it to 75% with the goal of
>improving the resolution.  It certainly works, and the
>results are quite a bit better than printing at the small
>size (we are talking 10 pt finished size here).  But the
>letters do *not* look the same as 300 dpi or even 600 dpi
>letters printed directly in that size.  They look lighter,
>thinner.

Our experience is that the photoreduction actually gives better
result, than a similar higher-resolution laser-printer.  It also gives
better result than a similar higher-resolution imagesetter. This last
is probably due to the blurring propensity of the laserprinter.

One propensity of the laser-printers is that the letters are
significantly emboldened. If you comparing the output from a (let's
say) Linotronic, with a laserprinter, you will see the difference.
So your thinning effect is probably just showing how the character are
designed to look. Unless you have some problem in your photoreduction.
(Like over-exposing)