View Single Post
Old 03-05-2008, 05:23 PM   #11
llasram
Reticulator of Tharn
llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.llasram ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
llasram's Avatar
 
Posts: 618
Karma: 400000
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EST
Device: Sony PRS-505
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
The major issue with that PDF vs LRF font analysis is that we do not know if the PDF is made for the screen size of the 500/505. If it's not, of cource LRF is going to render the font better. But I think if the PDF size is optimized for the 6" eink screen then I don't think we'll have a difference as the font will not have to be reduced. It's when the PDF is larger and has to be reduced that quality is lost.
Oh, no – one can definitely tell the difference. Creating a 88.184mm x 113.854mm PDF renders pixel-perfect size-wise (well, with some minor distortion because the Reader PDF renderer treats the pixels as squares even though they’re rectangles). But as obelix notes in his analysis, the PDF renderer renders “white” – including white page backgrounds – as one shade darker than the lightest the Reader is actually capable of. This plus what appears to be weaker font anti-aliasing vs. LRF results in a significantly more “washed-out” looking page. Having done exclusively PDF generation for several months, I assure you that the contrast disparity is quite noticeable. :-)
llasram is offline   Reply With Quote