On 5 Dec 2007 at 10:48, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > It just shows very well the underlaying problem: Finale's complete > dependence on screen or print resolution for its "wysiwyg".
Er, how could it not be? If you're laying out for print, the capabilities of the printer that you've got set up as the output destination is definitely involved in determining how what's onscreen relates to the printed out put. The exact resolution of the printer controls how adjustments onscreen get translated into printed output. For example, if you're viewing at 100%, a 1-pixel nudge onscreen may be (approximately) a 6-pixel nudge on the printed page if you're printing at 600dpi, and a 12-pixel nudge if printing at 1200dpi (that's assuming the Windows default of 96dpi). Some printers have different horizontal and vertical resolutions, so the nudges onscreen will map differently vertically and horizontally. When you're viewing at 400%, you get 4X the onscreen pixel granularity, so the 100% view 1-pixel nudge would be 4 pixels. A 1- pixel nudge at 400% would be somewhere between 1 and 2 pixels at 600dpi, and 3 pixels at 1200. So, what you do onscreen has to be mapped from your onscreen resolution onto what the capabilities are for your output devices, and that's a given -- it can't be avoided. Thus, layout at 100% is going to look different than layout at 400% simply because you aren't nearly as accurate at 100% as you are at 400%. Didn't MM/Coda used to tell us that the most accurate representation of output was at 400%? Working with a very large monitor running at very high resolution, that oughtn't be too difficult to work with. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
