From e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>
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

