Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanHK
I said, more than once, that the only reason I used that font was that the publisher, the guy who pays me, asked me to do so. As the guy who did it before me had done.
I won't say that Garamond is an ideal choice. I do say however, that I am looking at it on my own Kindle now and suffering no pain.
I took you off my ignore list to see what you were saying in my thread, but that was a mistake that I will rectify now.
|
Not all Garamonds are the same. (Believe me, I know.) Moreover, with a few clicks, you can
CALL the Garamond from the firmware (if that's where it resides. I don't pretend to know that). Badda-bing, instant readable Garamond. You cannot, I feel,
successfully embed Adobe Garamond--that's too light, oftentimes, on the older eInks. (It's fine it you are making FXL.)
It's all trial-and-error, when you're trying to dance on the edge of the knife--make (sometimes unreasonable) clients happy
and keep Amazon from eating you for breakfast. We have a different mandate than most, due to being on the List; we're
obligated to make books that, in the vernacular, "deliver a good reading experience to the customer." If I don't, If we don't, I risk
everything. So,
trust me, we don't embed too-light fonts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanHK
This appears to be similar confusion of terms as with video files, between codecs, like X264, X265, xVid video, and containers, like MKV, MP4, AVI.
People may say they prefer MKV files because they are higher quality than AVI. And they think that because most AVI files are xVid, and most MKV files are x264 these days.
But it's quite valid to put xVid in an MKV or MP4 container if you want to, but that won't change the quality.
People who do know the difference between a codec and a container pull out their hair and explain it over and over. But it just goes over their heads.
Sometimes you just have to walk away.
|
I freely admit that audio and video aren't my real area of expertise, but because we are on occasion required to embed same, in some of our multimedia books, I've had to learn the difference between codec and container. Not conversantly; but enough to say, "yup, that's that and this other thing is this." I try not to screw up the two. ;-)
And yes: the same thing is exactly true for "kf7" and "kf8." They're both carried in the SAME container. The container, to my way of thinking, is a MOBI file. Plain and simple. For a while there, sure, it was confusing--when KF7 was still commonplace, when you could relabel a kf7 .prc as .mobi (still can, BTW) and it would work at the KDP, and when the KF8 options came along. But now that the so-called "Dual MOBI" came along, for the love of heaven, arguing about what "mobi" is, is just...it's ridiculous. When Amazon puts out a FORMAT called .kf8, then I'll use that. But using that, when I am, in fact, talking about a MOBI built via KG/KP/whatever, which has not one file but three inside it, the source, the KF7/prc and the KF8/MOBI....no. Because I'm not building a KF8. I'm not building a KF7. I'm building...a MOBI file. Period, end statement, end of discussion.
/done on this particular topic now. Happy to contine to discuss fonts, as that's the thread.
Hitch