On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> This doesn't make a lot of sense: you should print out the PDF on a
>> 1200 dpi printer, and see how it looks on paper. Screen appearances
>> are misleading.
>
> OK, so if we print it out on a 1200 dpi printer, how do we get approval for
>
On 1/1/10 4:08 PM, "Han-Wen Nienhuys" wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Marc Hohl wrote:
>
>>>
>>> IIUC, you should do the following:
>>>
>>> 1) Make a sample at 1200 dpi and post it somewhere so that we can be
>>> satisfied that it looks right at 1200 dpi.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I used th
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Marc Hohl wrote:
>>
>> IIUC, you should do the following:
>>
>> 1) Make a sample at 1200 dpi and post it somewhere so that we can be
>> satisfied that it looks right at 1200 dpi.
>>
>
> Ok, I used the same example and created a sample page.
> It is available as a 1
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
On 1/1/10 2:52 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
[...]
Ok, so I'll go for this. It isn't as easy as I thought, because I cannot
just rotate the whole picture, because the path is too complex for metafont.
So I'll have to transform every poin
On 1/1/10 2:52 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen schrieb:
>> [...]
>>> Ok, so I'll go for this. It isn't as easy as I thought, because I cannot
>>> just rotate the whole picture, because the path is too complex for metafont.
>>> So I'll have to transform every point and draw thereafter. I
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
[...]
Ok, so I'll go for this. It isn't as easy as I thought, because I cannot
just rotate the whole picture, because the path is too complex for metafont.
So I'll have to transform every point and draw thereafter. It seems to
work, but
I have to change some explicit draw
On 12/31/09 7:45 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen schrieb:
>>
>> On 12/31/09 6:37 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Carl Sorensen schrieb:
>>>
On 12/30/09 7:42 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen schrieb:
>
>
OK, I've at
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
On 12/31/09 6:37 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
On 12/30/09 7:42 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
OK, I've attached a 300 dpi png and with the clef rotated from 0 to 4
degrees.
Thanks for your work
On 12/31/09 6:37 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen schrieb:
>>
>> On 12/30/09 7:42 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Carl Sorensen schrieb:
>>>
>>
>> OK, I've attached a 300 dpi png and with the clef rotated from 0 to 4
>> degrees.
>>
> Thanks for your work, Carl.
>> An Inkscap
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
On 12/30/09 7:42 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
On 12/30/09 6:06 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
@Carl:
I am not at all familiar with SVG. Could you please produce a file
similar to the one you sent already with different rotating angles?
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
On 12/30/09 6:06 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
@Carl:
I am not at all familiar with SVG. Could you please produce a file
similar to the one you sent already with different rotating angles?
I can only produce a file like that with the clefs you have designed if you
ge
On 12/30/09 6:06 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
>
> @Carl:
> I am not at all familiar with SVG. Could you please produce a file
> similar to the one you sent already with different rotating angles?
I can only produce a file like that with the clefs you have designed if you
generate svg output instea
Francisco Vila schrieb:
2009/12/29 Marc Hohl :
I concatenated the pdfs to one file, which is too big for the list, so I
put it on my website:
http://www.hohlart.de/marc/gclef-slant.pdf
I know that there is a spurious error on value 2, but I think that's not the
main problem. Which value loo
On 12/29/09 1:54 PM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
> Marc Hohl schrieb:
>> Francisco Vila schrieb:
>>> Just to add a bit to the brainstorming:
>>>
>>> The uppermost lace of our G-clef already was slightly oversized.
>>> I cannot explain why, but latest proposals I've seen are getting it
>>> even greater
2009/12/29 Marc Hohl :
> I concatenated the pdfs to one file, which is too big for the list, so I
> put it on my website:
>
> http://www.hohlart.de/marc/gclef-slant.pdf
>
> I know that there is a spurious error on value 2, but I think that's not the
> main problem. Which value looks best?
At a ris
15 matches
Mail list logo
