Did DRT just get all computer technical and stuff. Julian what have you done to him?


Surely the best approach would be a CMYK to RGB colour-space conversion performed in post-script?
Glenn: are you able to update your GhostScript to the latest? Please would you be willing to /InlineTitlesAttemptMinimiseNumContours true def, and test whether new GhostScript is still painfully slow? Thank you.GhostScript Bug 695906, on 16 Oct 2017 wrote:Works fine with the new scan converter.
I don't believe that I have GhostScript installed on my current computer. I have gone back to using ps2pdf.com because you fixed the issue that was causing that website to fail.jdaw1 wrote:Glenn: are you able to update your GhostScript to the latest? Please would you be willing to /InlineTitlesAttemptMinimiseNumContours true def, and test whether new GhostScript is still painfully slow? Thank you.GhostScript Bug 695906, on 16 Oct 2017 wrote:Works fine with the new scan converter.
This is not urgent.
Edit: also /InlineTitlesMaxNumberContours 20 def.
Code: Select all
mark
/Rect [ ... ]
/Subtype /Polygon
/BS << /Type /Border /W 1 /S /S >>
/Subj (A string)
/ModDate ParametersVersionDateTimeAdobeFormat
/F 64 128 add % ReadOnly + Locked. PDFReference16.pdf page 574
/Vertices [ ... ]
/Color [ 0.6 0.6 1.0 ]
/ANN pdfmark
In the above, the 1963 over Ck and Mz are clearly smaller than those over G and D; perhaps some form of proportion since the Mz and Ck are in a smaller font than G and D (being maximised to fit within circles), but it would look better if all the 1963s were the same size font. I don't know how the font size decision for the over-print of the year was determined (I haven't looked, to be fair); perhaps some additional form of control might already provide the capability to enforce a common font size for the 1963s since they are all the same and in the same size area, but if not then perhaps it might be a worthwhile addition.
It was wrong. I will investigate whether it was a user error or a programmer failure (same person; different roles) and suggest a plan, or just effect it.PhilW wrote:In the above, the 1963 over Ck and Mz are clearly smaller than those over G and D; perhaps some form of proportion since the Mz and Ck are in a smaller font than G and D (being maximised to fit within circles), but it would look better if all the 1963s were the same size font. I don't know how the font size decision for the over-print of the year was determined (I haven't looked, to be fair); perhaps some additional form of control might already provide the capability to enforce a common font size for the 1963s since they are all the same and in the same size area, but if not then perhaps it might be a worthwhile addition.
Code: Select all
/OvertitleMaxFontSizeProportionTitles 0.125 def
Code: Select all
/OvertitleMaxFontSizeProportionTitles 0.166666666 def
/FontSizesRatioAboveBelowOverMin 999 def
Code: Select all
/FontSizesRatioAboveBelowOverMin 2 sqrt sqrt def
Code: Select all
/FontSizesRatioAboveBelowOverMin 999 def