MacBook back-up necessity
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Chris Ridd on 2 Jul 2010 06:40 On 2010-07-02 11:21:04 +0100, Jochem Huhmann said: > real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) writes: > >> Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: >> >>>> Once information has gone into a PDF, it is just words, any structure it >>>> has is completely lost. >>>> >>>> It is a purely display only format. >>> >>> There is tagged PDF though, which tries to address exactly this problem. >> >> PDF is basically built upon PostScript, a language intended to be >> interpreted by laser printers. All it does it tell the device: make >> such-and-such a mark here. >> >> It seems like the worst possible starting-point for trying to preserve >> semantic content, never mind achieve accessibility. > > I'm certainly not advocating to use PDF as starting point for anything. > PDF is almost always created from something else (which may very well > have some structure in it) and if you have to create PDF anyway, a > structured PDF is better than an unstructured PDF. The last time I tried creating tagged PDFs (from Framemaker) the resulting files were massively bigger than untagged PDFs. I'm not sure I've really seen any tagged PDFs in the wild. What do Preview, iPhones/the iBooks app etc make of them? -- Chris
From: Jochem Huhmann on 2 Jul 2010 06:54 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> writes: > The last time I tried creating tagged PDFs (from Framemaker) the > resulting files were massively bigger than untagged PDFs. > > I'm not sure I've really seen any tagged PDFs in the wild. What do > Preview, iPhones/the iBooks app etc make of them? I have no idea, really. Tagged PDF is indeed nothing you run into easily... Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 2 Jul 2010 06:55 On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:22:37 +0100, peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) wrote: >Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> > There's no way a book containing large art prints can be rendered in a >> > form that can be enjoyed on an e-book reader in the same way. >> >> ok, I will give you that. Didn't occur to me as I wouldn't be looking at >> large art prints. However pictures in general I wouldn't have a problem >> with on an iPad style screen (the proper ereaders are very bad at >> pictures), just not crammed into a proper book form. > >Plus computer screens can be better at displaying full colour pictures - >especially once we get into 300+ pixels per inch. One pixel on a screen >gives you the full range of colours in the available gamut (is that a >redundancy?), whereas a CMYK image printed at 300dpi takes a lot more >dots to give the illusion of the same colour. A book of large art prints >would need to be printed at a minimum of 600dpi to give the same detail >as an iPad screen, depending on the process used. Are you thinking of the iPhone4 display (326dpi)? The iPad is only 132dpi, which would be about the same as a 100dpi-per-mask four colour separation I think. It's tricky to map pixel density to offset print though. Cheers - Jaimie -- "You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition, half of 'em are dumber than THAT." - J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
From: Pd on 2 Jul 2010 08:51 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > >Plus computer screens can be better at displaying full colour pictures - > >especially once we get into 300+ pixels per inch. One pixel on a screen > >gives you the full range of colours in the available gamut (is that a > >redundancy?), whereas a CMYK image printed at 300dpi takes a lot more > >dots to give the illusion of the same colour. A book of large art prints > >would need to be printed at a minimum of 600dpi to give the same detail > >as an iPad screen, depending on the process used. > > Are you thinking of the iPhone4 display (326dpi)? No, I checked the iPad resolution before typing that. I was thinking of 200dpi per colour to give a similar colour resolution to a 132ppi screen. > The iPad is only 132dpi, which would be about the same as a > 100dpi-per-mask four colour separation I think. > > It's tricky to map pixel density to offset print though. Quite. -- Pd
From: zoara on 2 Jul 2010 09:21
Bella Jones <me9(a)privacy.net> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Speaking of spectral, I currently sport a multi-coloured eye socket, >>> of >>> which I am inordinately proud. <http://bit.ly/bx0f4G> >> >> I'm proud too, though less so. http://j.mp/bNLckT >> The annual UCSM post-pub fight is always fun. See you again next > > year! > > Um, hold on guys, why the punch up(s)? Or was it just the two of you > together? I think it's obvious I won the fight. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm |