#Pixelations(PixelScript)
30 messages in this thread
Does anybody know? Is Pixelations (PixelScript) still in business? They
do not answer the phone number published in their manual did not answer my
first email message to them (I've just sent another, we'll see if it gets
better results). MCR – San Jose, CA CIS: 76450,26
Internet: mcr@unison.com
They were still in business as of about a year ago…i didn't have much
luck with email, either; paper mail worked for me.
I tried to contact them about an article where Pixelscript was mentioned. I
had no luck.
Ilsa,
Thanks. I tried the phone again and got a machine. But they didn't call
back. I sent another E-mail, with the reply requested option from Whap!,
no reply. I don't think they log on here anymore. I don't think much of
their customer service. If the shareware Post software I tried before
going with PixelScript hadn't kept crashing my system, I think I'd try it
again, maybe I could get some output this time and customer support isn't
an issue with them <sigh>.
I have version 1.1 of the PixelScript software; is the latest as far as
you know?
MCR – San Jose, CA CIS: 76450,26
Internet: mcr@unison.com
Michael,
I contacted Pixelations about a year or so ago (also about the same time i
found Post1.3). It seems that the "company" is a one-man operation, and
from the tone of his conversations with me he's not really continuing to
upgrade Pixelscript. The latest version, which he happily sent me was
1.1h.
A little known trick you may try if you're using pixelscript is to put your
postscript fonts in the fonts: drawer of the Pixelscript directory, but be
sure to append them with the .pxsfont extention — if you do they should be
recognized by Pixelscript just fine!
Also, you might try Post, now up to V1.6 It works quite well, by my
experience with some minor glitches:
1. you have to manually set the screen size (x about 2550, y about
3300 pixels) in the
startup screen in order to print.
2. you can't get both screen and print output at the same time
(although I'd be interested
to see if anyone with a 2Meg Agnus can do this!!!)
3. some fonts with "non-documented encrypted hints" don't want to
load very well
Other than that, it seems to be a quite workable program. I've tried both,
and in comparison I've had more success with Post (at least the 1.6
version). AND, FWIW, Adrian Aylward even wrote me back when I wrote him
with a problem I was having getting Post to recognize the Sonata music
font.
– Tim Trompeter…
Timothy,
I got a reply (finally) to my email to Pixelations. I was told by
Justin that the Amiga is no longer supported by them. That's not the same
thing as not upgrading PixelScript if they support other machines. I asked
for clarification on this point. We'll see.
Also, maybe I can get 1.1h from him.
Are you saying I can copy PostScript fonts from other platforms and put
them in the fonts drawer with the .pxsfont extension to add more fonts to
my system? Do I need to convert them in some way? What do I do for screen
fonts?
I tried Post and was wholly unimpressed. It crashed my machine on a
regular basis, and even when it didn't I never got any output. I'm sure I
had something configured wrong, but I had no way to figure out what it
might have been; the documentation didn't help. I don't remember what
version I was working with at the time (might have been 1.2), but I got
gunshy after a few crashes and lengthy, unproductive waits. Also, there
didn't seem to be any way to add more fonts. I guess our experiences don't
match very well. Is 1.6 in the libraries here somewhere? I suppose I
could try it again with this latest version and see if I get better
results.
MCR – San Jose, CA CIS: 76450,26
Internet: mcr@unison.com
Michael,
I'm pretty sure that all that Pixelscript needs in order to use a font in
it's font directory is the .pxsfont extension; I seem to remember trying
that out shortly after I got v1.1h. But my experience is quite different
with Post1.6, once it was set up properly it consistently worked better for
me than Pixelscript (which I paid full retail for, and took off my harddisk
and replaced it with Post).
Post can use any IBM Type 1 font (and i think type 3's as well).
I even used it to "trim" the Laserprep files from my Mac stuff (via AREXX,
of course 🙂 ) and can print most of the Mac stuff saved to postscript
files. Pixelscript gasps and dies on the Laserprep file (at least when I
tried it). Of course, there's the occasional headache, but hey, i'm
learning postscript in bits and pieces at the same time.
Post v1.6 should be online somewhere. I'd be happy to help you
troubleshoot it if you need the assistance.
– Tim Trompeter…
Tim,
Well. Now I have PixelScript working for the most part. It seems to do
what I currently need it to. I'm still irritable about Pixelations not
supporting the Amiga any more, but now I have working software.
But…
How would I get fonts that I could place in the appropriate directory
with the correct extension? Can I just download them from the Adobe forum
here?
Maybe later, when I have more time to experiment, I'll try Post.
MCR – San Jose, CA CIS: 76450,26
Internet: mcr@unison.com
I'd gotten an impression that Pixelations had become a part-time one man
show; I might guess now that its a zero time show. If true, a shame.
Ron
Ron,
A darn shame. PixelScript is a good product at its root, but it needs an
update. Color postscript support would be nice. More fonts. Support for
newer features of postscript.
'Doesn't seem likely, though. <sigh>
MCR – San Jose, CA CIS: 76450,26
Internet: mcr@unison.com
Unless someone buys it out, not likely, with them apparently being out of
business now.
Ron
If it has evolved into a one man operation, and he has decided no more
support, perhaps he'd be willing to sell cheap. (Better a little money for
something not being used, as opposed to no money at all.)
– Well Whap! Me Silly….
Michael,
I would suggest that you just download a PS type 1 font, and put it in
the PxSFonts: directory with all the fonts named nnnn.pxsfont Add the
.pxsfont extension (exactly as the others have–check for
uppercase/lowercase sameness) and create a postscript document that uses
your new font. See if it works that way.
You should be able to download fonts from DTPForum or Adobe forum, maybe
also in Macintosh fora.
.. Tim Trompeter…
Timothy,
Thanks. I may give that a try later this week. 'Busy doing project
plans at the moment….
MCR – San Jose, CA CIS: 76450,26
Internet: mcr@unison.com
If it works with type 1 fonts, it will work with type 3. Type 3 is sort of
a sub-set of type 1. There is no hinting in type 3. Type 3 is inferior to
type 1 for these reasons, and is not used unless that is the only
alternative.
– Well Whap! Me Silly….
Type 3 is also used for fonts with grayscale shading which cannot be done
in Type 1 fonts. We have a few Type 1's in the SL Typeface Library, like
Brass Plate which are sold in Type 3 format.
Mike Soft-Logik Tech
I think you may be a little muddled about the difference between Type-3 and
Type-1 fonts. Type-3 fonts are not a subset of Type-1, and if something is
working with Type-1 it doesn't mean it will will work with Type-3 … far
from it.
Type-3 fonts are little more than standard PostScript programs … there is
a BuildChar subroutine within Type-3 fonts which PostScript calls to "draw"
the selected character. This routine can do what it likes, within
PostScript rules, to render the character. In general, it will call a
separate subroutine for each individual character and these subroutines may
also use any of the standard PostScript operators (within reason!) and so
can include shading and other graphics features.
In other words, Type-3 fonts are a simple, user-writable, suite of
subroutines. As such, there is no hinting or other fancy features within
Type-3 fonts (unless the programmer happens to feel inclined to write them
in!).
Type-1 fonts are very different. For a start, the BuildChar subroutine
doesn't exist within the font program. Instead, it is part of the
interpreter and will call the appropriate "subroutine" within the Type-1
definition. The definitions themselves must conform to fairly strict rules,
use a very limited command set and are semi-compiled for speed. They are
then encrypted (twice) to avoid prying eyes and have a couple of extra,
special commands including those aimed at providing hinting information.
Type-1 fonts are therefore, in principle, much simpler than Type-3 fonts
and programs such as PageStream are able to implement Type-1 support
because of this.
Rather than say Type-3 is a subset of Type-1, Type-3 fonts are no different
to conventional PostScript programs, whilst Type-1 fonts are a very
restrictive subset of the PostScript language.
Mike (Whapping from the UK)
Tim,
I have Pixelscript, but have found Post 1.6 to be more useful. In fact I
use it daily. I set the size as x2448y3204, print to screen and IFF.pic. I
have used the print to screen and printer settings, and they work together
fine with my 2MB AGnus equipped '030 accelerated B2000 with MegaChip 2000
onboard. I did find one problem with Post. Heavy ruled boxes in PPage 2.1
or Prodraw 2.0 both have one corner of the box notched instead of mitered
(or closed). If the exact same file is output to a Postscript printer (like
a HPIII w/adobe cart) it prints fine. I sent a disk with the test files,
and printed output to Adrian via USsnail mail, and I hope to hear back from
him sometime soon. Other than that I would use Post over Pixelscript. I
prefer generating the large IFF pics, edit them if needed in ExpressPaint
and print them using PageControl to my GCC PLP non-postscript laser printer
and the Cltd lazerxpress system.
Chris
Pixelations is no longer in business. I talked with the owner just a day
or two ago. No support. Suggest you try SaxonScript. I just purchased it
and it is 2.0 compatible and much better than PrintScript. Supports all 35
standard postscript fonts found in postscript printers. Printing is
through a redirectable device so you can print directly from any
wordprocessor without any hassle.
Steven:
Do you mean that SaxonScript is installed on the system by mounting a
device thru the mountlist and then when PS output is sent to that device it
will print on the system printer properly? I've been using Post, and it
works great, but if SaxonScript is installed as a device I might just go
ahead and get it as well.
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike,
Not quite. SaxonScript has a program which you drop into the
WBStartup directory under 2.0 or can run in the startup under 1.3. Once
run the PSC: device is available. You don't need a mountlist entry. When
the SaxonScript program is run the device is automatically mounted and
available. You can then simply print to PSC: or you can output postscript
to a file and do a copy to PSC:. Either works fine.
Steven:
Well, that's what I was talking about. (having a device, doesn't matter how
it comes into being) I will definately have to get a copy of saxonscript.
Oh, does it do color PS to a color printer?
-Mike Schiller
In sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike,
That's the beauty of the beast. It FULLY supports color postscript
and claims to provide COMPLETE support of the entire postscript language.
In fact they claim to provide fuller support than laser printers!! I
bought it at my dealer for $109. That's about 20% off list. If you can
get it thru mailorder you can probably trim another 20% off. It comes on
three disks. The manual is adequate, but not extensive. Lots of theory on
postscript and printing, light on using the program, tho there isn't that
much to learn after installation. Takes a little while to do the
installation because each module (there are 5) needs to be installed along
with the main installation which embeds your serial number in the main
program. It's well worth the money. I've tested it with ProWrite and
Excellence and it works as advertised.
Steven:
Sorry, but it's impossible for SaxonScript to provide "more" PostScript
support (whatever that means) than licensed PostScript interpreters. Real
PS interpreters, licenced from Adobe, contain hidden functions which even
the laser printer vendors are not privy to (such as the actual Type 1 font
hinting mechanisms). So, though I imagine that SaxonScript does a fair job
with PostScript, I can't believe that it could implement ALL of
PostScript's features (for years, Adobe hid away the fact that the
interpreters contained special hinting functions; who'se to say there
aren't other functions buried away in them that we still don't know about?)
Unless of course Adobe has started selling their secrets to software
interpreter developers, which hardly seems likely…:)
Gary
– Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!
Of course it's possible to implement PostScript in software, that's what a
laser printer's got, right? As for a third party matching what's in the
Red Book, why not? PostScript effectively "stood still" for a long time;
the amendments to the standard were few and relatively inconsequential.
Once I saw MacWorld run a torture test on several PostScript printers; they
pointed out bugs in Adobe's own code as well as surprising differences
between printers. Adobe's own code sets a standard, but I think it's
possible for others to match it.
It's certainly possible for companies to make a stab at matching Adobe
PostScript, but it isn't possible to guarantee a 100% match. After all, as
Gary says, there are several things within the Adobe interpreters which are
quite clever and are _not_ matchable exactly by their party authors (and,
yes, there are some bugs in there too 🙂
Okay, they can make a stab at hinting or the fill algorithms, but they
aren't going to perform _exactly_ as the Adobe interpreters. The Red Book
is a description of how to program PostScript, it is not an expose of how
the interpreter works, nor does it cover some of the special features built
into PostScript. Red Book compliance is one thing, and several third party
interpreters do a very good job and get almost 100% … but a lot of
PostScript code (usually unwittingly) relies on some of the undocumented
side effects and some of the special features of the Adobe interpreters.
The problem of some PostScript implementations not fully matching the Adobe
interpreters is leading, for instance, to some PostScript code that won't
run on Adobe-validated interpreters and fonts which do not print correctly.
Mike (Whapping from the UK)
Gary,
I can only report what they claim. In their docs they state that
"As a postscript interpreter, SaxonScript actually exceeds the capabilities
of conventional Adobe Postscript laser printers in many ways." They then
list a number of these capabilities. Argue with them. They claim the
following:
1. Full color support
2. Able to produce more accurate output than Adobe PS under
identical
printing conditions.
3. Complex math routines which switch intelligently between
halftoning
and dithering to ensure maximum output quality.
4. Ability to generate irregularly shaped halftone cells.
5. Can print PS files directly to screen display in full color.
Steve: See my message to John for clarification. And BTW, I'm not coming
down on Saxon. In fact, from what I've heard about SaxonScript (and the new
Saxon Publisher), I think it's defintiely something I'll be looking into.
They may have their problems, but one thing you can say for Saxon: they're
committed.
Gary
– Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!
Steven,
I don't think I've seen this product advertised anywhere. Who makes it?
What other products do they make?
MCR – San Jose, CA CIS: 76450,26
Internet: mcr@unison.com
It is made by the same people who do Saxon Publisher, Saxon Industries.
Located at:
14 Rockcress Gardens
Nepean, Ontario
Canada K2G 5A8
613-228-8043
I purchased it through my local Amiga dealer, but I'm sure you can find it
elsewhere.