xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Hattemer <c.hatte...@arcor.de>
Subject Re: Image Size Calculations
Date Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:54:07 GMT
Clay Leeds wrote:

> If it's true that graphics measurements specified in INCHES yields 
> better results than PX, that certainly is news, and would (if 
> reproducible) warrant special mention on the FOP Graphics page. Can you 
> also do a test to see if the results are similar if you specify mm and 
> cm (millimeters & centimeters of course ;-)) as well?

I just found out that xpdf has fooled me. The default magnification level is
125%. It's clear that the images don't look good because they have been
scaled up for display. The images are fine when selecting 100%. Argh!

The images are too large in relation to the text, but that should be easy to

Another interesting thing is that another PDF of the same site, which was
built a few years ago using Windows tools (AFAIK MS Word and Adobe
Distiller), looks best at a magnification level of 150%. At 125% it still looks
better than the one I produced, but a close look with xmag reveals that it
is scaled. At 100% it's even more scaled. Dunno why this happens,
Windows is always strange.
> BTW, I don't know if this is related, but GIF images do not scale well, 
> as they are a form of a INDEXED BITMAP image. JPG images scale much 
> better. This could be part of the problem. If you're working with line 
> drawings, perhaps SVG might be a better format to use in your 
> documents.

Have a look at my previous mail if you want to see the images I'm working with.

Bye, Chris

To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message