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
fix.

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


Mime
View raw message