On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:24:34 -0400 (EDT), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
>> western.pdf 119190 bytes (the original .PDF)
>> western.zbm 32307 bytes (screen-cap of the PDF after converting to
>> _ BMPs with GhostScript/PDF2HTM.bat and viewed
>> _ in Arachne)(screen-cap made with Cntrl+P)
> Well, that convinces me... *pdf is definitely "better."
> I can easily read the name of the town on the map,
> Paramaribo in the pdf file, but I would never have been
> able to make that out for certain on the same section of
> the bmp map. (not to mention, the colors are different)
The colors are different because your box and Glenn's are set
differently. You see what Glenn saw in that .ZBM. What did the
author intend ? Re: the definition, the same argument. <g>
> <snip>
> File formats all have their trade-offs. PDF gives
> great detail at the cost of a littl more size. How
> could it be otherwise?
My $.04:
The problem with pdf is what is PDF ? They keep changing the damn
format and you have to download another bloated package every six
months ! And you can't make them yourself if you were thoughtless
enough to want to. :(
File formats DO have trade-offs, and although ZBM may not do any
more than let you see what the author WANTS you to see, PDF is a
very poor trade. If HTML wasn't designed to move around the screen
when you send it to someone with a different display size, it would
- in combination with .gifs or .zbms - make a much better solution.
I'm not pushing .ZBMs. I just hate .PDFs and would like to see ANY
substitute. <G>
- Clarence Verge
- Back to using Arachne V1.62 ....
