On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:07:59 +1000, mr.prnt <prnta@pdf.grab.org.org>
wrote further down but I can't use that post:
Octane dropped your attachment, so I have to use this post to reply
to, to stay in the thread.
Sorry if that is confusing.
>Erma <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>/trimmed
>Pixie..??..
>
You rannnnnnnngggg??
> if you are tuned in AND have the
>resources free,, would you consider looking
>at the upload and acting as a "control measure".
>Goils look at stuff a lot different... see more too<g>
>
Not liking what I'm seeing. Not what you want to hear, I know!
Erma's smaller writing is compromised and not so hot, but I can still
read most of the larger stuff. Yours is positively botched. (/hands
over head)
I can read way more of Erma's than yours. And when the page changes to
the photos and the better text, Erma's is fine. (pages 13/14 are
excellent).
It's only the first 12 pages of typewriter typeface that is crappy.
I don't have the original pdf to look at. It's not in my files, and I
have all these sets - no pdf's for any of them. Only text files.
As a point of order, how big is the original pdf??
Is Erma worried about webifying something that may not necessarily
need to be webified?? Jes' askin'...
Criswell don't insert megs of photos like AG, I only see two pages of
photos in this one (I see the other one of Erma's has more
pictures)...
Is this pdf really that big to start with??
Kit, are you webifying Erma's already webified one?? Cos that's what
it looks like. /blachk! Compromised on top of already compromised??
I don't see any pdf's in the lace Criswell posts. I have these files
and my sets don't have the original pdf's either.
I've got servers down everywhere and trying to follow the bouncy ball
is a bit confusing.
Since I have no original to run a benchmark past, both webifying
efforts are unreadable on the design info pages, Kit's more than
Erma's.
>Neither of you should need to unload any existing
>PDF software.. K??
>
Wassun planning to! Still in testing phase meself... /laff
Quite happy wiff what I have, and it's not Adobe shite!
>.. and need I say the upload is scanned with today's
>AV definitions, the work loaded to XP ProSP3??
>
And XP ProSP3 here. Viewing both efforts on two different monitors and
it's the same yuck view on both - just bigger yuck on the 20". The 17"
just made it harder going.
I wanna see the original and how big (actual kbs size and print
clarity) that is.
Is this a case of webifying something that is a hundred years old and
prolly doesn't need to be??
My files reveal my sets go back as far as 2001 (and that's posted,
not when they were actually created).... if Erma has original pdf's,
they can't be that big to start with?? Floppy drives still being
widely used circa 2000??
No??
Jes' askin' cos I doan know what we is "benchmarking" the webifying
against.
This could be a case for keeping the original.... no??
>cheers
>
Oh, I do like measured control.... it's so civilised!!
/chin chin
Pixie :-))
|
|