Re: BOUNCE docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org: Approval required:

[Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>]

Approved: turnip
Received: from starglo.research.oneworld.com (xXoGfnhFyAbKP2plKDBK8ad5TeqxwNO0@starglo.research.oneworld.com [143.227.3.18])
	by oasis.oasis-open.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA29063
	for <docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org>; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:49:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from starglo.research.oneworld.com (IDENT:YyQoymEehfnD89ol1WahQVL4qPV9hyP4@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by starglo.research.oneworld.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07962;
	Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200007112249.PAA07962@starglo.research.oneworld.com>
To: "Kevin M. Dunn" <kevinmd@hsc.edu>
cc: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Creating or converting PDF images 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:09:12 EDT."
             <396B8CF8.C3464303@hsc.edu> 
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:49:19 -0700
From: rosss@research.oneworld.com

> I didn't convert at all, just used your png file directly. The quality looks
> identical to that of your original file. But
> ImageMagick does assume 72 dpi unless you tell it otherwise. Check out:
> cator.hsc.edu/~kmd/docbook/test/rosss.sgml
> cator.hsc.edu/~kmd/docbook/test/rosss.dsl
> cator.hsc.edu/~kmd/docbook/test/rosss.pdf
> cator.hsc.edu/~kmd/docbook/test/png-support-3.1.dtd
> 

Thanks a ton Kevin, although when I view your PDF (on either Unix or
Windows), I'm seeing the same (poor) image quality I'm getting.  If
you compare

http://zaius.chimpware.com/~rosss/sample.png 

with either of the images on page 5 of your PDF at

http://cator.hsc.edu/~kmd/docbook/test/rosss.pdf

you'll see that the PDF version is different than my PNG.  It's got
extra pixels, the text is kind of goofy, and it just looks "funny"
compared to the original PNG screenshot.  It's like it's been shrunk
or stretched, but without being resampled so it's just lost or gained
pixels randomly.

Anyway, your PDF has exactly the same problem as what I've been getting.

What tools are you using?

Does anybody know if Ghostscript is involved with this process at all?
I'm running GNU Ghostscript 5.10, and noticed that there's a 5.50
version out...

Thanks for everybody's help and patience.

Sean Ross
Corvallis, Oregon, USA
rosss@research.oneworld.com