CompuServe Thread

#Pagestream 2.1 question

61 messages in this thread
#29887From: Software EtcJul 24, 1991 2:04 PM
Hello, I'm very new to DTP, I just got Pagestream 2.1 a coupla days ago. I've played around with it and like it a lot. I have a coupla questions though…. 1) I do not own a laser printer. What do I need to do to be able to print out a document on a laser printer hooked to an IBM? I have CrossDOS so would it be as simple as just PRINTING my document to disk using DI0: from pagestream? Does doing this created a totally printable stand alone file for a postscript printer? 2) Same question as above only for a linotronic (is that what it's called)–I want to be able to output to 1270 DPI.
#29936From: Jonathan HirschmanJul 24, 1991 9:17 PM
If were talking Postscript output devices, the answer is YES. Simply print to disk, and then either C:> copy FILE.ps prn: or C:> print FILE.ps If the autoexec.bat file is correctly set up (which it should be if the PCompatible is printing) you're in business. Another word about Postscript: the files get VERY large. I had a ProPage document that was 18 pages long, with 3-4 hires 4bitplane images per page. The resulting file was over 15MEGS long, which will not fit on a 720k disk. However, using lharc, I was able to crunch the file down to only 670k, then quickly decompress it with LHA on the PC (which is freeware for individual use). If you are using an HP, you can print to disk with the (?) CMD program, but I've found that copying the resulting print file to a printer is a hit or miss affair. Jonathan Jonathan – from Albany, NY, via whap!
#29955From: Software EtcJul 24, 1991 10:42 PM
15 MEGS!?!?! And it compressed down to 650K!?!?? I don't know much about postscript or how it works but that seems to imply it's very ineffeciant. Craig Glaser (Software Etc Milwaukee) – via Whap!
#30032From: Jonathan HirschmanJul 25, 1991 8:05 PM
No joke, it compressed from 15 megs down to 670k, like a 96% reduction. However, Postscript isn't inefficient, except when it comes to bitmaps. In this case, it describes every pixel that makes one up. However, if you were doing color seps, and sending the Postscript output to a service bureau, you would have a similiar situation as I did. I mentioned this because it is the best lowcost way of handling this situation. Jonathan Jonathan – from Albany, NY, via whap!
#30060From: Software EtcJul 25, 1991 10:59 PM
I only plan on doing single–maybe double page black and whites (maybe grey scales). I'm just a little confused with all the different fonts and terminology. My access to a laser printer is minimal so I will be doing most of my drafts on a 24 pin printer but I do plan on doing all me finals on a laser OR (if cost and availability allow it) an imagesetter. The thing that confuses me is all the different font types. If I donwload a bunch of ADobe fonts in the library, will I be able to use them in pagestream with satisfactory results using each of the above printing methods? It says in the PS manual that PostScript doesn't like Compugraphic fonts–thats fine. If I can just use all the Type 1 fonts I want (5 or 6 MAx per document) and print the file to disk then take it in and get it printed that would be AWSOME. That seems to be what the manual implies I can do. I hope so…
#30087From: Malcolm O'BrienJul 26, 1991 1:48 AM
Yup. You can use 5 or 6 Type 1's in a document, print to disk and take it to a service bureau to print it. Ain't life grand? 🙂 Earlier this year I was publishing a program for the C128. I did the manual with ProPage, printed to files, moved the files to PC disks with CrossDOS. The output was from a Varityper VT600 (600 x 600dpi) and I photocopied them on a new Xerox with metal plate quality. The photocopies looked like 300 dpi originals and that's what went in the packages. Simple, cheap, good-looking and I didn't have to book time anywhere. Just walked in. Malcolm
#30179From: Jonathan HirschmanJul 26, 1991 9:36 PM
If you stay away from bitmaps (the grayscales are Postscript patterns, so they don't require the same kind of storage), you should be fine in terms of file size. Please be advised that you will need the OUTLINES in order to print to the 24-bit printer (I have never used pagestream, but this is my understanding); you do not need them to print on a Postscript device if the fonts are resident or downloaded to these devices. You may need to buy some fonts to do what you want to do. You probably want to talk to the MIFONT people about this. You can get all of the fonts that are most often found in Postscript devices by purchasing ATM and ATM Plus Pack for MSWIndows, although you may have to do some leg work to generate or obtain the .AFM files that I believe Pagestream requires. Again, talk to the fontheads, since I am no Pagestream expert. If you have any other generic Postscript questions, drop me a line.
#30218From: Soft-Logik Tech SupportJul 27, 1991 2:04 AM
Jonathan, here we go, confusing people again. 🙂 NO, DON"T BUY THE ATM PLUS PACK. It doesn't have the required PostScript files. It has MicroSoft's flavor of PostScript which isn't the same as the PC standard. Download PD fonts off of here, off of the Soft-Logik BBS (probably over a hundred in the fonts library there, converted and ready to use), or buy them in PC format. Of course you can wait for our fonts, which will be out soon, or you can buy them from Image Club, or Monotype, or Linotype, or Adobe, or… SL Tech
#30394From: Jonathan HirschmanJul 28, 1991 11:43 PM
Sorry to confuse anyone, but I did put the standard disclaimers in my message – something about not being anything near a Pagestream expert (or user), and that it would take some legwork to get all the requisite files. When I wanted the standard 35 fonts for POST, it was the easiest way to do it. The fontheads have spoken.
#30749From: Jim HalleyAug 1, 1991 4:46 PM
Michael, what is the number of the Soft-Logik BBS, and the parameters, and is it located in a PC Pursuit city or do you know? How many lines do they have, and how long can you stay on at a time? Thanks for the info in advance. Jim Halley – via Whap!
#31112From: Soft-Logik Tech SupportAug 6, 1991 3:12 AM
Soft-Logik BBS # is 314-894-0057. It's listed in the inside front cover of your 2.1 manual. (If you don't have the 2.1 manual you can buy it for $25 I believe. It is really worth the money. You will find PgS has more features than you know about. The 1.8/2.0 manual missed a lot.) It's located in St.Louis. I don't know about PC Pursuit, I live in Canada. It's a single line, 2400 baud non-MNP BBS. You get instant access, I'm not sur what the normal user time limit is. And as of this week, after a transformer blew, the phone line went down, and the hard drive controller died (not a good week to phone the BBS 🙂 it has a much larger hard drive. SL TEch
#31468From: Jim HalleyAug 10, 1991 10:05 PM
Oh, yeah! Hey, you're right, it is in there. No, I have 2.1 so, yes I have the manual. Gosh, its amazing what you find in the manual if you just take the time to look, Huh? But seriously, thanks for all the info. It will definitely come in handy. JH – via Whap!
#30216From: Soft-Logik Tech SupportJul 27, 1991 2:01 AM
Yes, you will be able to use any downloaded PC Type 1 font with PageStream. You can use as many as you want per document, memory being the limiting factor. To a PS printer, printer memory is the limiting factor. 3 or 4 is probably the limit for the average page with 2 megs of printer ram. Use auto-unload if you need more fonts. Yes, it's not really that hard Craig. But for gray scales, you'll want imagesetter output. Grayscales on lasers are not all that great. SL Tech
#30278From: Software EtcJul 27, 1991 10:14 PM
Since I'll only be able to use lasers and Imagesetters from afar…(via Postscript to disk) does this auto-unload feature still work??? Does it also work for Imagesetters? If so, that would be great! I don't mind waiting a bit longer.
#30438From: Neil RobinsonJul 29, 1991 4:12 PM
I've since downloaded the *.AFM files for the Times, Helvetica, Courier, and Symbol fonts, that are in the PC ATM package, from the Adobe forum library and after unpacking them (they are in Packit format) using A-Max II and transferring them using the Postscript option to AmigaDOS, I copied them into a directory where I already had the files from the PC ATM disk (which I had transferred using Cross-Dos without translation options). With all of that in the directory, I started up PgS and using the font manager added the directory to the list and used the update command to add the fonts. Then I went back into PgS and tried to use the fonts. They don't show up. I've checked the *.AFM files, they are standard ASCII Postscript files. The *.PFB files are in binary with an ASCII header containing copyright information. What can I be doing wrong? Although the font manager section of the handbook is well-written for when things go right, there is nothing in there to cover when things go wrong. (Not a major complaint, just a bit of feedback). Also, I am a registered user with Soft-Logik in North America, although I live in Germany. I've noticed that notification of upgrades seems to come 6 weeks to 8 weeks behind my friends in the computer club with APO addresses. Is there any special reason for that? I would like to be kept up to date at the same speed as the other users. I recall being notified of the update from 1.6 to 1.8 about 2 or 3 months after my friend, and he had his 2.1 update at least 2months before I was even notified that I could update. Please do somehting to rectify this.
#30517From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 30, 1991 1:32 AM
For all the standardization that Adobe set out to establish, it is amazing how many inconsistencies there are in the various file formats associated with Type 1 fonts. There are probably inconsistancies in the various entries in your .AFM file(s) and the ASCII header(s) of the .PFB file(s). PgS supplies a utility to correct these problems. DON'T USE IT! It wrote garbage to my hard drive. Examine the files, using a text editor for the .AFM file and a HEX editor (NEWZAP) for the .PFB and examine the entries for Fontname, fullname, family name, and version number. These must correspond. Alter either file to accomplish this and the problem should clear up.
#30583From: Neil RobinsonJul 30, 1991 5:28 PM
I just checked the two files, the *.PFB and the *.AFM and the font names are identical and also correspond to the names of the files (not including .PFB or .AFM). Now what?
#31029From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Aug 5, 1991 1:56 AM
Neil, Did Mike's suggestion about the Default option in the Manager help? You go your way . . . I'll go Maui Rich 😉
#31048From: Neil RobinsonAug 5, 1991 1:58 PM
I tried what he said, I suppose I also should have said that I am only trying to add Times, Helvetica, Courier, and Symbol. I discovered the styles from Times in the CS Times section and the styles from Helvetica in the CS Triumvirate section. How do I get them into their own sections? They are NOT identical fonts, and I would prefer to keep them separate. Ciao, Neil
#30673From: Mike ToddJul 31, 1991 5:54 PM
Neil I had some problems with installing fonts … just in case you've overlooked something, this is whtt I do (I had a lot of problems until I realised that I wasn't clicking on DEFAULT): Select the manager … and select ADD … then select the directory in which the font is located … the manager will list the contents of that dir … then click on OK, and the fonts in that dir will be added to PgS's internal font list … then click on DEFAULT, and the font list will be saved. If the font you've just added is a directory which is already being used, just click on UPDATE and then on DEFAULT. You should only use ADD if the directory doesn't already exist .. otherwise you'll get in a mess … use UPDATE if the directory already exists, ADD if not. You probably already know all this … but just in case … :-))
#31111From: Soft-Logik Tech SupportAug 6, 1991 3:08 AM
Neil: it sounds like your afm files are not being recognized. Check in the font manager. Click on the font drawer you have already added. Do the afm files show up in the right selector? If not, they are not being recognized and were not transferred properly. If you can't get the afm files to work, the easiest method is really to buy the Plus Pack. It gives you dmf outlines on screen, identical Adobe widths and kerning, and resident PS fonts on PS printers and DMF outline fonts on non-PS printers. If you're registered as an American user (ie: American address or APO # or Canadian address) you will get your upgrade notice from SL itself. Fast. Registrations for other countries are not handled by SL. I belive Germany is handled by Upgrade Editions in Paris. Their releases are always a little later than SL's releases. They are the company which sells PageStream in most of Europe and they do all local product support and registration. (Of course we will be more than happy to answer your questions here, though!) SL Tech
#31164From: Neil RobinsonAug 6, 1991 5:03 PM
It turns out the fonts are being recognized, but I can't tell what is what. Look at my message number #31048. They are being mixed up with the CG fonts! RE: Upgrade Editions, I can understand that a foreign language version might take two or three months longer to hit the market than the english language original, but since I am receiving nothing but the English language version, I don't understand the long delay. I've already had to register some software packages at my father's address in Syracuse, NY just to get support at all (Borland, Microsoft) so I suppose I shouldn't complain, but it gets a bit tiring to constantly be treted as some sort of weird lifeform just because I don't live in North America. I realize that the Canadian post office has a *bad* reputation to maintain (at least according to my Canadian girl-friend) but it isn't that big a hassle mailing things here. Ciao, Neil (A resident of the World)
#31540From: Soft-Logik Tech SupportAug 11, 1991 8:38 PM
Neil: UE does not use Soft-Logik's documentation; they write their own manuals. As well, the European edition may/may not come with different drivers, different spelling/hyphenation drivers etc… SL Tech
#31610From: Neil RobinsonAug 12, 1991 4:26 PM
I just checked my manual for 2.1, and it is either a very good copy of your manual or an original. It says, printed in USA on the back of the title page. I realize this is probably flogging a dead horse, but if I am prepared to pay for the upgrade and for the postage, I don't see why I should have to wait 2 or more months longer to get service. I certainly didn't pay any less for the product than anyone else, and as far as I can tell from the manual, I didn't get a different version, drivers, manual etc. Ciao, Neil
#31231From: Mike ToddAug 7, 1991 1:41 PM
I am interested in your comments about registration. I (or rather the magazine I was editor of at the time) bought my PageStream from SL direct and I was a registered user … I then recently paid for the latest upgrade. Are you saying that I will no longer be considered as registered user?? If you're not saying that, how can I guarantee getting upgrade notices? Mike (Whapping from the UK)
#31541From: Soft-Logik Tech SupportAug 11, 1991 8:39 PM
I'm sorry, I don't recall our conversation regarding your registration. (Too many questions on CIS, GEnie and the SL BBS gets to me.) You registered as a US customer originally? From whom are you getting upgrade notices? SL Tech
#31765From: Mike ToddAug 14, 1991 3:25 AM
I am registered for PageStream (plus ProPage and ProDraw) … and I have certainly had some upgrade notices about PageStream .. but only after I rattled a cage or two. My PageStream registration was sent off a long time ago (when I was editor Transactor magazine) and, when I heard of the upgrade, I wrote with evidence of my original disk/manual as I didn't have my registration number. I received a couple of flyers following that, and paid for (and received) the latest upgrade. I would certainly assume and expect that I remained registered with S-L in the US rather than have to deal with someone over here. Mike (Whapping from the UK)
#31494From: Neil RobinsonAug 11, 1991 7:03 AM
I suppose I also should have said that I am only trying to add Times, Helvetica, Courier, and Symbol. I discovered the styles from Times in the CS Times section and the styles from Helvetica in the CS Triumvirate section. How do I get them into their own sections? They are NOT identical fonts, and I would prefer to keep them separate. Ciao, Neil
#31542From: Soft-Logik Tech SupportAug 11, 1991 8:42 PM
Well, the fontequiv file is what makes Helv, Helvetica and Triumvirate equal. If you are doing PostScript work, don't change things, you'll only mess it up. This is because Helvetica and CS Triumvirate are identical for all intents and purposes. Now if you have Helvetica Black, you may not want it to show up in the Triumvirate family, but you can't change it, because its base font is Helvetica and that is equivalent to Triumvirate. If you don't use the CG fonts, delete them, and edit them out of fontequiv.v2 with a tex editor. SL TEch
#31589From: Gary BrusanowskiAug 12, 1991 10:16 AM
SL: I hate to butt in here, but (?) I've run into this "Helvetica is the same as Triumvirate" fiasco before and I thought I'd pass on a word of caution here. Adobe's Helvetica (licensed from ITC) and CS Triumvirate are similar in appearance but ARE NOT THE SAME FONT! Type the same line of copy in each and compare them. Triumvrate is much heavier than Helvetica and thus has a higher characters-per-pica ratio than Helv. The reason I mention all this is that, while there's no problem in using Triumvirate as a Helvtica substitute, there is a problem with equating them as the same font in quivilency tables (as both GD and SL are doing). Alot of people are creating their docs with Triumvirate and saving out PS files with the name Helvetica in them. If these PS files were to print on a PostScript printer containing the Helvetica font (which all do), the spacing and kerning information used to create the doc would be meaningless since the output font (Helv) would not contain the same characteristics as Triumvirate and it's likely you'd find your carefully kerned type dribbling off into places you didn't want it to. I think a tremendous disservice is being done to DTP users when they are told that this font is "essentially" the same as that font (or rather, not told, since the equivilency files are fairly hidden to the end user). It's the sort of thing that breeds ignorance and causes unnecessary problems. And I suspect that telling people to "not change things, you'll only mess it up" is a poor excuse for perpetuating what amounts to a shoddy attempt at patching CG fonts into Adobe's domain. If Triumvirate is similar to Helvetica, say that. Don't tell people they're the same font unless they are. Adobe and Cassady & Green both sell a Bodoni font, whose letterforms are very similar. But Cassady & Green's Bodoni is much lighter and takes up almost HALF the space the same line Adobe's Bodoni does. Would you tell your users that they are same font? Can you tell that I've been to Hell and back over this with Gold Disk? 🙂 [ MORE ]
#31590From: Gary BrusanowskiAug 12, 1991 10:16 AM
[ continuation ] Gary – Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!
#31609From: Neil RobinsonAug 12, 1991 4:26 PM
Success! Now that I have commented out all of the equivalents in the fontequivv2 file that was in the PSFONTS directory, all of my fonts show up. By the way, there was a noticeable difference between the Helvetica and the CS Triumvirate. I had known this before. I have a Deskjet 500 and the Windows 3.0 driver includes Intellifont and CS Triumvirate. It doesn't replace Helvetica however and after printing a line in both the difference was obvious. That's why I wanted the Helvetica available to me on the Amiga using Pagestream. By the way, I think that with a little work on the user interface and such that Pagestream would certainly make Pagemaker uses fall dead in their tracks. I've liked it from the start and even in its first incarnation it could do things that Pagemaker still can't do in version 4.0. I have to admit though that Pagemaker's user interface seems to be more intuitive and easier to use. By the way, there are still bugs in the Window handling. When I click on an arrow to scroll just a bit instead of dragging a scroll bar the screen gets redrawn, but nothing moves. Same thing if I click on either side of the scroll bar. I am using an Amiga 2000, with a GVP 68030/882 board at 36MHz with 9 MB RAM, the Fat Agnus (ECS), the Commodore Flicker Fixer, WB and Kickstart 2.0 Kickstart v37.175 and WB v37.33. Also the GVP Series II SCSI controller. Ciao, Neil
#30102From: Mike ToddJul 26, 1991 4:22 AM
"it describes every pixel that makes one [bit-image] up" When you say "describe", PostScript doesn't describe each pixel as it does each letter/word in text. Instead, it takes the bitmap in binary form (just as it might be in IFF or internally represented) and converts each byte to hex … it just doubles the number of bytes used. Describing text, one character at a time, can sometimes mean as many as 40 times the number of characters. Mike (Whapping from the UK)
#30180From: Jonathan HirschmanJul 26, 1991 9:37 PM
I was just trying to explain why bitmaps are so huge in Postscript, but I guess your explanation is more exacting.
#30036From: Gary BrusanowskiJul 25, 1991 8:09 PM
Craig: PostScript is not necessarily inefficent, you just get big code with it. Since everything in PostScript is ASCII, you can only describe bitmap pictures in ASCII which will blow it out from it's "1 bit/1pixel" format to at least "1 byte/1pixel". This will naturally make your files bigger. However, if you print a PostScript file directly to your PS printer, it isn't necessarily slowed down by the ASCII format. It's just transporting it across modems and putting it on floppies that gets to be a pain. And ASCII compresses really well (most of the time) so even that's not really too much of a problem. The fact that PostScript is in human-readble ASCII format is what's made it such a world standard. You can write and debug a PostScript program with a word processor. It makes it universally accessible (and trust me, debugging PostScript is bad enough already…:) Gary – Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!
#30103From: Mike ToddJul 26, 1991 4:22 AM
Gary … that's not quite true!! PostScript does not need to do 1 byte/pixel (except if you want grey scale, when you'd need more anyway). PostScript can handle 1, 2, 4 or 8 _bits_ per pixel and that is inherent in the image operator which takes bits/sample as a parameter. Therefore, as I've said before, PostScript is not inefficient at images .. in fact, it is much more efficient at bit-images than with text. Of course, if the program generating the image chooses to use 8 bits/sample, then that's not PostScript's fault 🙂
#30354From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 28, 1991 2:56 PM
". . . and trust me debugging PostScript is bad enough already . . ." True not if backwards think you! <g>
#30367From: BILL LEACHJul 28, 1991 7:21 PM
Rich; That looks like Forth! Are Forth and PostScript related? <grin> An Amiga message processed by Whap!, bill
#30419From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 29, 1991 11:21 AM
Yup. Forth and PostScript are very similar. Both are stack-oriented, reverse-Polish notation languages. A little strange at first, but once you get into the mind-set, very logical (what else?).
#30426From: Mike ToddJul 29, 1991 1:07 PM
Bill They're not directly related, but PostScript is stack-oriented (like FORTH) and uses postfix notation (e.g. 2 2 add) … it also has some similarity with LISP too. Mike (Whapping from the UK)
#30066From: Malcolm O'BrienJul 25, 1991 11:50 PM
You might try print a few pages at a time to a file. Some PS printers will choke on huge files. At Transactor we rarely made any files larger than 5 pages. Having small files also makes it easy to transfer them to IBM disks and misses out the step of compressing/decompressing.
#30192From: Software EtcJul 26, 1991 11:13 PM
All I'm going to be using it for is flyers and simple 1 page (two-sided) newsletters. Graphics will be minimal (1/3 page MAX–Black and whit or color grey scales…). I'm aware of PostScript printers reqiring huge amounts of memory to eat graphics at 300 dpi and so forth. I was worried most about transfering it to IBM or MAC format disks and just printing out the file. Given the replies I've gotten it seems I shouldn't have to much of a problem. I really have an interest in DTP, It's going to be interesting to see how things turn out. I like what I've seen of Pagestream so far. I still haven't gotten through the manual yet, but I'm getting there. I do wish I had a faster Amiga (using a A500 w/3 MEGS ram, fatter agnus and 105M hard drive), maybe in the future I'll get a 3000 <Dreaming>. Thanks for all the help… I'm sure I'll be back before to long with a list of questions <G>
#30196From: Michael GerardJul 26, 1991 11:25 PM
Craig: You will find that even an HP compatible printer will require 3 megs of ram to print out a full page of graphics. My laser has only 512K which is enough to do only 1/5 of a page of graphics, although it has no problem printing a full page of text from PageStream. Graphics are what eats up memory… even simple graphics like hairlines and boxes. Why not convince your store amnager or district manager to get the store a TI Microlaser PS and allow you to take in small printing jobs!<g>. – Whapping from the North Coast Michael
#30279From: Software EtcJul 27, 1991 10:15 PM
If I was using this for the store I suppose I'd have a chance, But this is for my use. I've thought about getting a laser printer, but the resoulution isn't that good (relative to a few years ago). I'm not making a career out of this (yet) just kind of a hobby right now. If laser printers offering upwards of 1000 dpi became available CHEAPLY, then I'd get one. But thats a long way off I imagine. Craig Glaser (Software Etc Milwaukee) – via Whap!
#30317From: Michael GerardJul 28, 1991 10:07 AM
Craig: Don't be misled by resolution figures alone. Go to a Computerland (or wherever) and look at the difference between a 360 X 360 DPI bubble jet output page and a 300 X 300 DPI laser output page. You'll be surprised to find that the laser page is far superior. – Whapping from the North Coast Michael
#30343From: Malcolm O'BrienJul 28, 1991 1:54 PM
There are evident differences between different types of 300dpi lasers too! Some look better than others. No kidding. Check it out.
#30386From: Michael GerardJul 28, 1991 10:24 PM
You're right. There are differences between 300 dpi lasers. Different engines print differently, and there are several types of print enhancement technologies that are incorporeated in to a few, like HP's Resolution Enhancement Technology that actually varies the size of the dot printed to give sharper curves.
#30478From: Malcolm O'BrienJul 29, 1991 9:49 PM
I wasn't even thinking about Res Enhance Tech! Compare the Apple LaserWriter and a NEC LC-890. Print some italics. There's no comparison! The Apple italics look much more stair-stepped. Compare an OLD HP against some of the HP-compatibles. The latter look smeared in comparison.
#30750From: Jim HalleyAug 1, 1991 4:46 PM
Craig, I am using PgS and outputting to an HP LaserJet III (no postcript). I truly think that if you saw the output you would be impressed. You can get these printers for around $1600 now and an additional 2 meg board (don't buy the HP board, its a rip) will cost around $250. I'll tell you. It's not quite as good as a linotronic, but if you're using structured clip-art and the fonts that come with the program, the output is excellent. It is at least good enough to do a hobby newsletter, which is what I use it for. Jim Halley – via Whap!
#30796From: Software EtcAug 2, 1991 1:49 AM
The reason I said Lasers don't look all that good to me as far as resolutions go is not based on their text output which DOES look quite good, but rather the very poor (in my opinion) screens. I don't plan on doing JUST black and whites. I plan on using a lot of greys. A lino is about the lowest I've seen that does it to my satisfaction. The other reason a laser doesn't look very good to me right now is cost. I'm only doing this as a hobby right now. I'm not paying $1600 for a hobby. If I seem to be any good at this, or really like it and the possibilities arise that I can make some money off of this then a laser would start to look good. As of right now I'm only doing 2 or 3 pages a month. Very little. I'm not to the point where I'd need a laser to proof things such as kerning and so forth… I'm still a layman by a long shot. Of course none of these should be taken as I don't WANT a laser. Hell, if someone said, "Hey kid, you want this laser printer–go ahead it's yours" I'd be quite happy and probably start going to church more often. <SIGN> I guess for now I have to be happy with a 24 pin–which does do a respectable job. Craig Glaser (Software Etc Milwaukee) – via Whap!
#30819From: Michael GerardAug 2, 1991 7:02 AM
Craig: If your output is that low, then you're right. But don't deny yourself the best possible outout on the stuff you do. Craete a PgS test file. When you're happy with your proofs, print your PgS file to disk, TWICE. First using the postscript driver, then using the lino driver. Use CrossDos or Dos2Dos to put the files on an MSDOS formatted disk (or convince your service bureau to get an Amiga…or send your Amiga disks to Chris Tolmie), and then drop them off at a local service bureau that has postscript and lino capabilities. The Laser outout should only cost around $3.00, the lino at 1200 DPI should run about $12… and if your files have some serious greyscales in it, have them outout it at 2400 DPI also (around $20). Then you'll have a good way to judge what you can accomplish in B & W… The do something in color! – Whapping from the North Coast Michael
#30873From: Gary BrusanowskiAug 2, 1991 11:02 PM
Michael: Just thought I'd jump in here for a second and ask that all important question: doesn't anybody send PS files to their output bureau by modem? This is really odd. Most Mac users don't up here, either. Very strange. I can't understand why anyone would want to transfer their files to an IBM disk and then spend the time (and money for couriers, in many cases) to get something to their output bureau when they can just zip that sucker up (getting 60-70% compression on most PS stuff) and BOOM!, done. Maybe it's just easier with my output bureau, I don't know. Gary – Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!
#30895From: Christopher TolmieAug 3, 1991 3:05 AM
Michael, Our 1200dpi output for a letter page is $8 when you modem it to us. And 2400dpi is $12 modem. You can send the disk too, and get the same price. Our courier pick up rate is a $2 more a page. 'Course your outside of our pick up area! B^) We do negatives, and separations too, more $$ cost for film. Chris ACCU-TYPE & GRAPHICS (a service bureau in Delaware)
#30894From: Christopher TolmieAug 3, 1991 3:04 AM
Craig, You can modem your PgStr files to me in an LHARC file, we charge $8.00 for 1200dpi letter and $12 for 2400 dpi letter-size, RC paper output. Give a call at 302-366-7581 for info on the transfer. Our BBS isn't 24hrs. But it could be if more people would want to call it. Right now we handle modem transfers as they're needed. Chris ACCU-TYPE & GRAPHICS (a service bureau in Delaware)
#30976From: Jim HalleyAug 4, 1991 1:50 AM
Hey, if someone offers you one, ask them if they have a spare. The one I'm using now is at the office. I certainly could use one at home. I think if that happened, I'd probably start going to church more often too. :^) Jim H. – via Whap!
#31034From: Software EtcAug 5, 1991 2:14 AM
Sure thing. This reminds me of something that happened by a PC store nearby our store. Seems someone broke in to there store one night and took a whole lot of stuff. They musta taken a bit more than they could carry because the next day the staff found one of there HPIII's laying in a stairwell in the parking garage. <SIGH> The very stairwell I would have used had I worked that day…Now I'm an honest person but finding a brand new HPIII just laying on deserted stairwell would have been an interesting situation indeed <EG> Craig Glaser (Software Etc Milwaukee) – via Whap!
#30101From: Mike ToddJul 26, 1991 4:22 AM
Craig PostScript is _not_ inefficient for what it is doing … because it is a programming language … but for outputting text, it can appear very inefficient. Depending on the complexity of the docuemnt, especially how much the tracking, kerning or whatever is altered as you may find that every single character will consist of something like: 144.3548 3324.4435 moveto (a) show At least most PostScript output knowck some of this on the head by creating a special routine to simplify the above … which might run something like: 3324.4435 (a) ms Even so, each single character (or word, or section of text), gets expanded … and there's a lot of additional stuff too … hence, PostScript looks inefficient varying from about 40:1 to 4:1. Bit-images can also appear quite inefficient … although they're much more efficient (in percentage overhead) than text. A simple "one-plane" bit image may be broken into 8-pixel bytes … and these are sent as hex characters, therefore doubling the character count (2:1) … gray scale images are much the same, each pixel may be represented by a single byte (again, as hex) and so it still remains at 2:1 Mike (Whapping from the UK)
#30121From: Gary BrusanowskiJul 26, 1991 12:23 PM
Mike: One of the things we're missing in this thread about the ineffieciency of PostScript is how it's written. A PostScript generating program (aka. page-creation programs like PPage and PageStream) are ultimately responsible for how big a PS file gets and how fast it prints. Our new program creates PostScript files (type catalogs) and we found that making the smallest of changes in the output code would result in a speed increase of nearly 10 times! I'll say one thing: PPage PS code is a little bulky, but it whips like crazy. Mac users at our output bureau go nuts when they see our files pop out in less than a minute. Of course, they go straight from their applications to the lino (and through AppleTalk no less! Yeesh!) and have all sorts of font ID conflicts which we never have… poor Mac users! 🙂 Gary – Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!
#30133From: Mike ToddJul 26, 1991 2:42 PM
I would certainly agree with that .. and I kinda tried to imply that in one of those earlier replies. I've done a lot of work in ProPage which has gone to a bureau. Originally, I took the PS code on MS-DOS disks and they did, as you said, fairly whip through the RIP. In fact, on my first visit, the operator ran a simple document through and the Lino started to feed out the bromide into the carrier. He saw the laser-proof and said that there was obviously something wrong, since it must have produced a blank page, so he ran it through again. It did the same … so he then said he ought to import it into a Mac and try again (fortunately, he had warned me to bring EPS versions just in case) This was imported into the Mac and then printed … this time it took much longer (presumably because of the Mac prologue) and he was happy. When he then processed the bromides, he got the shock of his life!! The bureau now owns an Amiga, but sadly doesn't use it very often. Mike (Whapping from the UK)
#30193From: Software EtcJul 26, 1991 11:13 PM
Oh boy, I wasn't serious when I said inefficent, or at least I worded it wrong. I was more or less making a joke at the 96% compression rate–15MEGS –> 650K. I accedently had my Pagestream printer config set to postscript and tried printing to a Dot-matrix, I got a first hand look at postscript language (about 10 pages before I finally reset the Damn thing) <G> Craig Glaser (Software Etc Milwaukee) – via Whap!
#30226From: Mike ToddJul 27, 1991 3:23 AM
Sorry, Craig … didn't mean to imply anything 🙂 Certainly, unlike a straight "text" printer, the number of characters that pour out of a PostSCript driver is substantial …. but then, as I said, it is a computer program and not just some odd control characters followed by text. Personally, I like PostScript a lot … althoguh it can be a bit convoluted at times. Mike (Whapping from the UK)