From e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Norbert Preining Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 13:46:59 +0900 Subject: Initial commit --- info/digests/texline/no7/barb.tex | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+) create mode 100644 info/digests/texline/no7/barb.tex (limited to 'info/digests/texline/no7/barb.tex') diff --git a/info/digests/texline/no7/barb.tex b/info/digests/texline/no7/barb.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..58e41681bf --- /dev/null +++ b/info/digests/texline/no7/barb.tex @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +\centerline{\bf PostScript and math} +\medskip\noindent +Various comments on this subject (mainly +appearing in \TeX{\sc hax}) have finally goaded me into putting in my +two cents' worth. For a publisher of mathematics, there are two problems +with trying to generate \TeX\ output on a \PS\ typesetter --- fonts and +speed. + + Leaving aside the fact that some people just like other fonts +better than Computer Modern, there is really no good alternative at present +to the Computer Modern math fonts. And, in my opinion, even if they're +generated from outlines in the ``native'' \PS\ fashion, the CM math +shapes simply don't mix well with other styles. It's got to be possible +to make other alphabets (e.g.~Times Italic) behave well in math --- in fact, +it's been done at the American Math Society for some non-\PS\ Times fonts +--- but it's a {\it lot} of work! And I didn't realize until the job was done, +and I was seeing competent math coming out of our typesetter in Times, the +extent of the subtlety in the Computer Modern math. + +With Computer Modern, +someone with a trained eye can spot math very quickly. The spacing of the +italic is clearly different from that of the math, but also, the shapes +are different. (Take a closer look sometime.) This means that in theorems, +traditionally set in italic (here I personally like Knuth's innovation of +slanted, but my opinion is not shared by my employer's editorial staff), +it's possible to distinguish math from text quite easily, even the single +letter a ({\it a} versus $a$). +I know of no other fonts, anywhere, where this sort of distinction +has been made. (But I'd welcome hearing about it if anyone else does.) + +Regarding speed, most of the \PS\ rips (raster image +processors) are geared for low-resolution production, say 300\,dpi, the +resolution that requires 1\,Mbyte of memory to hold a full bitmap of a US +letter-size page. Even keeping up +with a relatively fast print engine like the 40\,ppm {\sc dec}\-server40 is child's +play compared to keeping up with the rated speed of a real typesetter, +with over 1000\,dpi resolution. I would welcome +some statistics for typesetters performing ``real'' jobs --- using a large +selection of (native) fonts in several sizes. Without outline fonts for +math, any math job statistics are probably meaningless, since the time +to download bitmaps is relatively much greater than to use outline fonts. + +A promising development I've read about recently ({\it Seybold Report}, Dec 28) +is a new rip designed to handle Alphatype's Alphacomposer, which has a +resolution of $5300\times5300$\,dpi and runs at a maximum speed of 3 minutes/page. +That's a 280\,Mbyte bitmap requirement for $8\times10\,\hbox {in}$! (The same article gives +benchmark results from Linotype showing that its present rip can't even +keep up with a 1270\,dpi engine.) The new rip is supposed to be ready for +demonstration sometime during the first quarter of 88; it was developed +by Medianet, not Alphatype, and the agreement is non-exclusive. This +looks like it's worth watching. Until this kind of speed is available +for \PS\ typesetters, they just won't be practical for technical +publishers, and 300\,dpi (even 600\,dpi) just isn't good enough for the +highest-quality typesetting that most major publishers are looking for. + +\rightline{\sl Barbara Beeton} + -- cgit v1.2.3