[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

ps2pk vs. gsftopk

BTW, I posed a similar question on comp.loang.postscript without any
decisive answer:

quality of rasterization with a standard printer PS interpreter /
ghostscript / gsftopk / ps2pk .

I find gs impressive especially since some bug fixes in version 3.53.
I can hardly distinguish between gs + pcl and ps on a laserjet 5 Si.

My question was: will I loose some quality if I use the pk's generated
by either ps2pk or gsftopk instead of downloading the type1 fonts (it
saves time & memory) -- unfortunately, dvilj won't work with 8r
reencoded fonts.

I must say that, as it looks now in xdvi, ps2pk bitmaps are worse than
gsftopk's (which is quite astonishing if the rasterizing code was actually
use in Lexmark printers...), but I am not sure that gsftopk yields as
good bitmaps as ghostscript + the good driver.

Of course, if you never download bitmaps, ps2pk is faster and consumes
less memory, but you are sometimes disturbed by distorted stems.

Any specialist's advice?