At 10:22 AM 98/11/27 , Hans Aberg wrote:
>>i swear to you, i was _happy_ with 300 dpi for at least 7 years. its
>>nonsensical, IMHO, to say that 300 dpi cannot display fonts
>>correctly. *some* fonts come out badly, most don't
>Well, that's what I meant: For hyperfine fonts and such, one must have 600 dpi.
Then don't use them for this purpose. Lucida was the first font family
designed exactly to address the issue of readability in a digital world.
In any case, people used CM (which is thin) happily for many years on
300 dpi printers. And properly hinted `hyper fine' fonts don't have a
problem at low res either...
>>how does this follow at all? are you telling me you cannot read 24pt
>>Lucida New Math on screen?
>Believe it or not, 24pt Lucida New Math is not convenient for displaying
>math formulas: One should use 10 pt, and regardless how you magnify it to
>see the details, necessary in math as a tiny dot usually means something
>different than something quite close to a dot, it is not very convenient.
I am not sure what you are saying here, but you may be caught in the straight-
jacket of browsers (which cannot magnify). Acrobat Reader provides for
on screen magnification. Sebastian's example of 24pt LNM -- in my reading ---
stands for 10pt LNM zoomed to 240% on screen.