Shiny New E-Book Gizmo: The Amazon Kindle


View Full Version : I observe that the Reader does not preserve typeface.


fishman69
05-12-2007, 04:21 PM
When I insert an RTF document that had been formatted in a typeface called Della Robbia, the document is actually displayed on the reader in an ugly typeface that looks suspiciously like Times New Roman. Della Robbia is a Venetian with angled horizontals in the 'e', but what comes up in the reader has straight horizontals. UGLY!!!!!!!

Harvey

RWood
05-12-2007, 06:40 PM
There is nothing wrong with your Reader. RTF documents default to Dutch (Times), Swiss (Ariel), or Courier. To use any other font you need to use either a PDF with embedded fonts or an LRF also with embedded fonts. BookDesigner can create LRF files with embedded fonts for the Reader but at the expense of larger file sizes and slower page turns. While some people were originally able to add a font to the Reader, this option seems closed off since the first firmware update.

HarryT
05-13-2007, 01:29 AM
When I insert an RTF document that had been formatted in a typeface called Della Robbia, the document is actually displayed on the reader in an ugly typeface that looks suspiciously like Times New Roman. Della Robbia is a Venetian with angled horizontals in the 'e', but what comes up in the reader has straight horizontals. UGLY!!!!!!!

Harvey

Where do you imagine that the Reader is going to get your font from? :grin:

RTF documents do not have fonts "embedded" in them. Your RTF document is requesting that font, but the Reader can only respond by using on the fonts it has, which are versions of Times Roman, Swiss, and Courier.

You can, as RWood says, embed fonts in LRF or PDF files, but it does slow down page turning on the Reader somewhat.

fishman69
05-13-2007, 04:51 PM
Where do you imagine that the Reader is going to get your font from? :grin:

RTF documents do not have fonts "embedded" in them. Your RTF document is requesting that font, but the Reader can only respond by using on the fonts it has, which are versions of Times Roman, Swiss, and Courier.

You can, as RWood says, embed fonts in LRF or PDF files, but it does slow down page turning on the Reader somewhat.

RTF files certainly seem big enough to have fonts embedded several times over. When I go from a Word .doc file to a Word .rtf file, the size trebles. ;-(

Harvey






Word

RWood
05-13-2007, 07:59 PM
Word adds a lot of unneeded stuff to the RTF file. Many people use OpenOffice or WordPad to strip the extra stuff from the file. (You may have to re-add the title and author tags to the RTF.) Also, if you have a graphic in the RTF file it will increase the file size by an unreal amount and still not display on the Reader. For graphics you are better served with LRF or PDF files, both of which can display graphics.

HarryT
05-14-2007, 01:51 AM
You're not kidding about the graphics. I've had cases where adding a 100kb JPEG file to an RTF file increases the size of the file by 5MB! It's because every "pixel" in the image is stored in the RTF as a hex character string.

NatCh
05-14-2007, 08:07 AM
... every "pixel" in the image is stored in the RTF as a hex character string.URK! :freak:

HarryT
05-14-2007, 08:11 AM
In fairness, RTF was intended to be a document interchange format, for exchanging documents between different applications, rather than a "native" storage format, so portability and ease of implementation were priorities over efficiency.

NatCh
05-14-2007, 08:25 AM
True, but I still say "URK!" :wink:

UncleDuke
05-14-2007, 08:51 AM
lrf is the way to go
someday i will even format a book and post it
someday rocks will fly
i already have rocks inside my head
someday they will be outside too

kovidgoyal
05-14-2007, 09:54 AM
In fairness, RTF was intended to be a document interchange format, for exchanging documents between different applications, rather than a "native" storage format, so portability and ease of implementation were priorities over efficiency.

Ease of implementation! RTF is God's own mess.

bkilian
05-14-2007, 02:05 PM
Ease of implementation! RTF is God's own mess.
Actually, it's quite easy to parse and to write out. It's when you get to the extensions and extras added in recent years (like images) that it becomes unwieldy and difficult to work with.
I wrote a RTF parser in an afternoon, which I used for adding header information to my RTF books, but the lack of image processing in the Sony Reader caused me to abandon my app in favor of doing full conversions in BD.

kovidgoyal
05-14-2007, 02:39 PM
My point exactly a whole afternoon for something as simple as metadata.