<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Hans Roels <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hans.roels@base.be" target="_blank">hans.roels@base.be</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I need pictures of > 300 dpi of a Pd patch to publish them in an article. I generated postscript files with 'print' in the menu but the copy editor wants a better quality. I also enlarged the fonts of the patch and then generated a postscript file but it still isn't good enough. I used screen capture software on windows and linux but with the same -not good enough- result.<br>
Has anyone any tips to solve this issue? Maybe someone that has experience with printing Pd patches in books or articles... (for example I notice that in Miller his book the diagonal lines connecting the objects are really diagonal, not in steps...).<br>
<br>
I need a quick answer and solution for the editor before tomorrow/friday evening! Thanks for any advice...<br>
<br>
best,<br>
Hans r<br></blockquote></div><br>Hi Hans,<br><br>The postscript files that Pd generates for me (here on Linux at least) are vector-graphic, which means they have a so-to-say "infinite resolution": one can zoom into them endlessly and shapes will still be perfect and pixel-free. (see attached screenshot of pd-window in the foreground and zoomed postscript in the background)<br>
I suggest that you check that this applies to your postscript files as well (take a look into them with Document Viewer in Gnome or Ghostscript on Windows) and is they prove to be vector-graphic, you can simply tell the editor not to worry and go ahead using them.<br>
(Of course, if someone opens a postscript file with the wrong program, it can look pixelated when it is actually not.)<br><br>András<br>