On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Davison, Lee wrote:
70 DPI would
be something like a 9 pin dot matrix printer.
The definition on those 9 pin dot
printers is about 100dpi but the
resolution is much less, possibly less than 50 dpi.
If you make characters that
are a 7 by 9 pixel matrix (the coarsest that
most people will EVER tolerate), how are you going to get 80 characters
per line with less than 70dpi?
The Transtel
printer here is lucky if it can print a straight line.
There were and are many POS
printers. Besides, by this time of day, I
can't print a straight line, either.
If a manual
was phototypeset on a CAT phototypesetter . . .
No, the resolution may be 2000
lines/inch, the definition won't be.
I doubt you'll find any feature, even on good copy, smaller than
1/250". On old manuals I would be suprised to find much, if any
detail smaller than 1/100" so ok. 250dpi then.
In the late 80s, I had to make a lot of the fonts that I needed.
(Cordata and HP compatible soft fonts) When using CX engine laser
printers, at 300dpi, there were DEFINITELY single pixel features at
1/300". 300 dpi is so damn coarse, that you can't even make a GOOD serif.
The entire reason for "hinting" in Adobe Postscript fonts is entirely
because 1/300" is NOT good enough resolution for algorithmically reduced
fonts, and would LOSE features.
I made one font for in-house archiving that consisted of a 7 by 9 PIXEL
(also made a 5 x 7) font mimicing the PC character set at 300dpi. Our
"Fiche font" permitted squeezing a LOT of text onto a page. I could take
what would otherwise have been a few hundred pages, and fold it up and
stuff it in a posket. Every pixel was clear and distinct. The later SX
engines overflowed the pixel cell with each dot, making for a MUCH richer
black, but blurring the pixels together.
(That was before presbyopia set in. Now I need significant optical
assistance to read my old materials.)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com