| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2497.1 | | DDIF::KROBINSON | Icon do windows | Thu Mar 22 1990 12:54 | 8 |
| Invariably, when an image is dithered, it loses resolution. So, the short
answer to your question is no.
However, there are other, slower dithering algorithms where the dot pattern is
less obvious. Some day, there may be a qualifier allowing you to choose
such algorithms from printscreen. But this is not planned for the short term.
kathy
|
| 2497.2 | | KONING::KONING | NI1D @FN42eq | Fri Mar 23 1990 12:06 | 4 |
| Why would you do dithering with PostScript, given that PostScript is perfectly
well capable of doing its own gray scale handling through halftone?
paul
|
| 2497.3 | is it usable? Sounds not. | AIRBAG::SWATKO | Electrons are cheap. Trees are not. | Mon Mar 26 1990 14:30 | 14 |
| .0
> the resulting
> resolution is 10 dpi!!! This is ridiculous!!! It looks like the
> result of a monkey having hammered on a typewriter... (but it is not
> hamlet!).
.1
>there are other, slower dithering algorithms where the dot pattern is
>less obvious. Some day, there may be a qualifier allowing you to choose
>such algorithms from printscreen. But this is not planned for the short term.
Sounds as if the software is nearly unusable in it's current state. You
might really consider bumping up it's priority if you expect people to USE
your software.
|
| 2497.4 | Unusable! Change or remove it! | SUOSW4::WAGENBLAST | Abradradra | Wed Mar 28 1990 02:40 | 19 |
| Hi again!
I simply want to have a dithering algorithm that uses smaller fields
for dithering, for example a 4 x 4 dot field. If you have a 300 dpi
printer, it still leaves you with a resolution of 75 dpi. In other
words, the dithered fields would be 0.013 inches wide. Presently they
are approx. 0.05 inches wide (according to my measurements):
- Present algorithm: * dithering fields .05 inches wide (16 x 16 dots?)
* estimated 256 gray shades
- Algorithm I would like: * dithering fields .013 inches wide (4 x 4 dots)
* 16 gray shades
I think 16 gray shades should suffice, as you have not a stunning
resolution here and so can't aim at professional imaging.
I know the present algorithm is a sort of tradeoff between resolution
and number of gray shades, but I think it is not the ideal compromise.
It is really unusable! Either change it, or remove this feature totally!
Still hopeful,
Thomas
|
| 2497.5 | Good time for another QAR? | AIRBAG::SWATKO | Electrons are cheap. Trees are not. | Wed Mar 28 1990 11:50 | 5 |
| Sugg...Maybe you want to put in a QAR (HIGH priority) to be sure that
something gets done about it. At a minimum, the resulting image from
PrintScreen must contain readable characters!
-Mike
|
| 2497.6 | Another QAR might help | CSC32::M_MURRAY | | Thu Mar 29 1990 21:03 | 14 |
|
See QAR 3957 in the DECWINDOWS-IFT database. (Not answered)
CSSE generated a patch as a result of a CLD. It is known as
DECW$PRINT$PATCH02_053 in the CSSE system, and is included in
CSCPAT_0110 in the CSC patch database (which fixes color printing).
It was fixes the quality issues with SIXEL screen capture, provided
that rotation and scaling are turned off.
Please QAR this, as it continues to be an issue.
-Mike
|
| 2497.7 | What is this patch solve ? | EIGER::BRUGGER | Hansjoerg Brugger @RLE, CH | Thu Apr 26 1990 10:46 | 12 |
| > CSSE generated a patch as a result of a CLD. It is known as
> DECW$PRINT$PATCH02_053 in the CSSE system,...
Who is happy with this patch ????
I have a customer, who has the problem with the bad Print Screen quality
with VMS 5.3. We installed this patch, but the quality was not better.
Does anybody believe, that this patch helps ?
regards
Hansjoerg
|
| 2497.8 | well, it is better than nothing! | TOOLEY::B_WACKER | | Thu Apr 26 1990 17:10 | 5 |
| >Does anybody believe, that this patch helps ?
Not that I've heard of. We're spr'ing it. Why don't you, too? For
starters, color sixel comes out half the size of non-color, so I
think we're probably getting too much of a good thing!
|