🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0E010009.ga3tkq@stx.UUCP> costello@stx.UUCP (Michael E. Costello) writes:

   From: costello@stx.UUCP (Michael E. Costello)
   Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
   Date: 26 Jan 91 19:28:23 GMT
   Reply-To: costello@world.std.com
   Organization: BCS*Mac
   X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.0.2


   In article <27A0D88E.25278@ics.uci.edu>, ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) writes:
   > >I know ATM is good for smoothing really large fonts, but does anyone have
   > >first-hand experience with it, for improving deskwriter output at small
   > >fonts like 6-14 point?

   ATM doesn't help *any* printer in that size range.  The indifference point
   between having specific bitmaps versus letting ATM do its thing is right
   around 14 points.

   ==>Michael Costello                   costello@world.std.com
   ==>BCS*Mac, The Boston Computer Society Macintosh User Group
   ==>P.O. Box 2591; Woburn, MA  01888             617-631-8188

I think that statement is a bit misleading -- ATM won't help much when
displaying 6-14 point text on-screen, and in fact, hand-tuned bitmaps will
probably look significantly better.  I can say from experience though that the
printed quality of smaller sizes (I've only played with 9 point and up, but I
suspect it applies equally well to smaller sizes) is noticeably better with
ATM than without, even with 4x bitmaps installed.  I would speculate that this
is because the Deskwriter is a 300dpi printer, whereas bitmaps are 72 dpi, so
a reduced 4x bitmap is really a 288 dpi bitmap represented in 300 dots per
inch, where ATM will create a true 300 dpi bitmap.

--
|-                       Peter E. Lee, Staff Assistant                       -|
|   Software Development Lab at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst    |
|         lee@cs.umass.edu or Fuligin@umass.bitnet or (413) 256-1329          |
"When you expect whistles, it's flutes.  When you expect flutes, it's whistles"