Thanks, DX! Some of them still look mildly crappy onscreen (as opposed to all and very), but they print much more cleanly.
So that's my dream. That and some stuff about cigars and a tunnel.
Faith ,'Get It Done'
Buffistechnology 2: You Made Her So She Growls?
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
§ ita § - Dec 21, 2005 9:03:03 am PST #6109 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Jon B. - Dec 21, 2005 9:11:58 am PST #6110 of 10003
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
If you're printing the PDF, then 72dpi images will look crappy printed irrespective of the "PDF resolution" (I'm not sure what that means -- text is resolution independent). Ideally, you want the images to be 300dpi, although less than that can look OK.
§ ita § - Dec 21, 2005 9:15:08 am PST #6111 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I'm not sure what that means -- text is resolution independent
Text is, PDFs aren't. There is indeed a driver setting for the PDF resolution.
I printed an image from the file, and it looked decent. That's all I care about.
Jon B. - Dec 21, 2005 9:24:56 am PST #6112 of 10003
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
I think that if a PDF is entirely text and other vector-based elements, then it is resolution independent. I've opened PDFs in Photoshop and Photoshop has asked me what resolution I want to open it at.
§ ita § - Dec 21, 2005 9:32:45 am PST #6113 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think that if a PDF is entirely text and other vector-based elements, then it is resolution independent
Can't say. All I know is mine are not, and switching it helped.
Eddie - Dec 21, 2005 11:20:43 am PST #6114 of 10003
Your tag here.
Somewhere in Bitches or Natter ita asked what is Web 2.0. This may be of use [link] ; there's lots of words at least.
Web 2.0 reminds me of the two-tiered internet that some ISPs are starting to implement. For example, if an ISP offers a VOIP service, they may block access to competing technologies like Skype. Or they may charge some websites for priority routing/bandwidth to their sites. Or a search engine could pay for exclusive web search rights on the ISP's network and all other search engines would be blocked.
Here's a [link] .
§ ita § - Dec 21, 2005 11:28:51 am PST #6115 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Based on that article and the others I've read, Web 2.0 is bullshit branding.
Betsy HP - Dec 21, 2005 1:10:41 pm PST #6116 of 10003
If I only had a brain...
Nope. It's Really Vital Stuff.
Web 1.0: Boring, unhip, tired.
Web 2.0: Exciting, hip, wired.
Now pay me lots of money to tell you which is which!
bon bon - Dec 21, 2005 2:00:24 pm PST #6117 of 10003
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
It sounds a lot like 1998 all over again.
Cass - Dec 21, 2005 4:38:47 pm PST #6118 of 10003
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.
# If I get InDesign, will I miss Quark?What version of Quark? They are different still but getting less so in terms of functionality.
I think that if a PDF is entirely text and other vector-based elements, then it is resolution independentPDFs rasterize pretty much anything which is how the images and fonts and things can be platform and machine independent.