Why is the text so horribly blurry in this PDF?

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

<http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>

Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
<http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>

Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[isw]

In article <1kmdtdu.9gh3f8honwm5N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,

jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
>
> Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
> <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
>
> Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
> Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.

Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
text.

Isaac

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
Your thought was my first too, though :-)

[Jolly Roger]

In article <1kmdy3y.1v406enr2pn0jN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,

jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1kmdtdu.9gh3f8honwm5N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> >
> > > <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
> > >
> > > Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
> > > <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
> > >
> > > Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
> > > Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
> >
> > Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
> > text.
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.

How sure are you that the text is real text?

What application did you use to create the PDF, and with what settings?

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[PhillipJones]

Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <1kmdy3y.1v406enr2pn0jN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,

> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
>> isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <1kmdtdu.9gh3f8honwm5N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>> > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>> > > > <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
>> > > > > Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
>> > > <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
>> > > > > Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI
>> Radeon HD 2600
>> > > Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
>> > > Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding
>> the
>> > text.
>

>> Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
>> Your thought was my first too, though :-)
>

> Perhaps its been saved in Preview using the 'reduce file size' option.
>

I tend to think that as well or it was generated with the Apple PDF
generator.

Which is about three versions behind Adobe's Acrobat engine. (On
purpose). If you have access to a Mac and, if you have access to
original Document (maybe it’s a word document) and you have acrobat X
go to print menu click on PDF and wait for popup menu. Choose adobe
quality PDF. Then choose high quality. Next save. when you open it will
look like it just came off a printing press.

[Wayne C. Morris]

In article <1kmdy3y.1v406enr2pn0jN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,

jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1kmdtdu.9gh3f8honwm5N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> >
> > > <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
> > >
> > > Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
> > > <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
> > >
> > > Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
> > > Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
> >
> > Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
> > text.
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
> Your thought was my first too, though :-)

I suspect it was scanned and OCR'd, with the OCR'd text invisible or behind the
scan image. It's a method of turning a printed book into a PDF and preserving
the visual appearance without having to recreate the fonts and formatting
perfectly, and still be able to select & copy the text.

[Paul Sture]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:06:47 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

> In article <1kmdy3y.1v406enr2pn0jN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,

> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
>
>> Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
>> Your thought was my first too, though :-)
>

> Perhaps its been saved in Preview using the 'reduce file size' option.

I've seen blurry stuff when I've tried to print Preview pages after
zooming into them.

--
Paul Sture

[nospam]

In article <jollyroger-2996A...@news.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> > > > <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
> > > >
> > > > Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
> > > > <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
> > > >
> > > > Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
> > > > Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
> > >
> > > Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
> > > text.
> >

> > Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
>
> How sure are you that the text is real text?

because the text can be selected & copied, then pasted into something
else. that's not possible if it was scanned.

> What application did you use to create the PDF, and with what settings?

if you actually read what he wrote, you'd see that didn't create it.

however, it was created with pdftk.

[~±]

On 27/6/12 21:39 , Wayne C. Morris wrote:

> I suspect it was scanned and OCR'd, with the OCR'd text invisible or behind the
> scan image. It's a method of turning a printed book into a PDF and preserving
> the visual appearance without having to recreate the fonts and formatting
> perfectly, and still be able to select & copy the text.

Exactly. There's hidden OCR'd text:

http://www.marcoklobas.net/sharing/PDF_OCR_1.png
http://www.marcoklobas.net/sharing/PDF_OCR_2.png

Bye.

--
~ą

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-27-2012 14:03, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1kmdtdu.9gh3f8honwm5N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>>
>>> <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
>>>
>>> Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
>>>
>>> Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
>>> Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
>>
>> Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
>> text.
>

> Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
> Your thought was my first too, though :-)

Maybe it's in a "Blurry" font. :-)

I am not aware that such a font exists, but I have certainly encountered
more than one font that was DESIGNED to reduce readability.

--
Wes Groleau

“Brigham Young agrees to confine himself to one woman,
if every member of Congress will do the same.”
— Weekly Republican, 1869

[Erik Richard Sørensen]

isw wrote:
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>> <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
>>
>> Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
>> <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
>>
>> Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
>> Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
>
> Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
> text.

Hm, not JPEG... The text is selectable using the cursor word by word or
sentense by sentense. If it was a JPEG scan the page would be placed in
the PDF as an image per page and when you hover the cursor over it, it
should change to the crosshair marker.

From what I can see the text is not in black, but in apprx. 70-75% grey...

Cheers, Erik Richard

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-m...@Mstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Erik Richard Sørensen]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 06-27-2012 14:03, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>> isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>>> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>>>> <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
>>>>
>>>> Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
>>>> Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
>>>
>>> Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
>>> text.
>>
>> Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
>> Your thought was my first too, though :-)
>
> Maybe it's in a "Blurry" font. :-)
>
> I am not aware that such a font exists, but I have certainly encountered
> more than one font that was DESIGNED to reduce readability.

Indeed! - especially some of those socalled 'designer fonts' more made
for fun than real use... - This font though looks to me to be a Garamond
Demi type. As written it isn't black but more like 70-75% grey. Alone
this will blur it when saved into PDF using either or the other system
built-in PDF engine...

[Jolly Roger]

In article <270620121722044834%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-2996A...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
> > > > >
> > > > > Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
> > > > > <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
> > > > >
> > > > > Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD
> > > > > 2600
> > > > > Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
> > > >
> > > > Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
> > > > text.
> > >
> > > Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
> >
> > How sure are you that the text is real text?
>
> because the text can be selected & copied, then pasted into something
> else. that's not possible if it was scanned.

Wrong. As Wayne C. Morris mentioned, and as ~+ has shown the text you
are seeing in the PDF is scanned text:

In article <jsfuis$ram$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, ~ą <in...@nospam.net>
wrote:

Now I predict you'll try to weasel out by trying to convince yourself
that you were right all along, and that the rest of the world is wrong,
as usual. Have fun with that.

[isw]

In article <4feba82e$0$283$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,

Erik Richard Sørensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:

> isw wrote:
> > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> >> <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
> >>
> >> Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
> >> <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
> >>
> >> Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
> >> Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
> >
> > Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
> > text.
>
> Hm, not JPEG... The text is selectable using the cursor word by word or
> sentense by sentense. If it was a JPEG scan the page would be placed in
> the PDF as an image per page and when you hover the cursor over it, it
> should change to the crosshair marker.

I didn't say that the pages were images. But the noise is still there.
Maybe the OCR scan was made from the poor JPG images?

> From what I can see the text is not in black, but in apprx. 70-75% grey...

Yes, that too. But the actual edges of the glyphs look pretty decent.

Isaac

[Paul Sture]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 02:41:17 +0200, Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:

> isw wrote:
>> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>>> <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
>>>
>>> Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
>>>
>>> Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD
>>> 2600 Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
>>
>> Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
>> text.
>
> Hm, not JPEG... The text is selectable using the cursor word by word or
> sentense by sentense. If it was a JPEG scan the page would be placed in
> the PDF as an image per page and when you hover the cursor over it, it
> should change to the crosshair marker.

But looking at it with a Linux PDF reader, attempts to select the text
show shorter rows than the displayed text. This supports the idea that
proper text has been combined with some sort of image, and maybe the
image has been blown up from its original size.

> From what I can see the text is not in black, but in apprx. 70-75%
> grey...

Yes, definitely grey.

--
Paul Sture

[Erik Richard Sørensen]

isw wrote:
> Erik Richard Sørensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>> isw wrote:
>>> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>>>> <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
>>>>
>>>> Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
>>>> Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
>>> Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
>>> text.
>> Hm, not JPEG... The text is selectable using the cursor word by word or
>> sentense by sentense. If it was a JPEG scan the page would be placed in
>> the PDF as an image per page and when you hover the cursor over it, it
>> should change to the crosshair marker.
>
> I didn't say that the pages were images. But the noise is still there.
> Maybe the OCR scan was made from the poor JPG images?

No, but if you scan text to image (JPEG) it mostly will be more or less
blurred.

>> From what I can see the text is not in black, but in apprx. 70-75% grey...
>
> Yes, that too. But the actual edges of the glyphs look pretty decent.

I think I may have found where the problem is... The fonts used in the
PDF are Helvetica and Times... Helvetica is used for sans-serif headers
and corsives, Times for body text.

The fonts are not the modern TTF or OTF versions but the old ANSI Type 1
and in few places Times ANSI TrueType, - no mentioning of present
PostScript fonts or any AFM tables for use with PS anywhere...

The bodytext is mostly in ANSI Times Type 1 and if you don't have all
the various sizes present for Acrobat (here Acrobat 7.0) you will get
blurred text in sizes larger than the present size. - I.e. if you have a
12p present but use it in 13p it will get apprx. 8-10% blurred. - The
larger difference between the present font size and the actual used
size, the more blur until the limit is reached and the text instead gets
pixelated. If I recall right the limit for ANSI Times Type 1 is +2p.

Using Acrobat 5.x or newer will automatically try to compensate for
missing font sizes in Type 1 fonts - and funny enough I've noticed that
doing so with some ANSI fonts, the text gets grey - more or less -
probably because doing it this way, will dim the blurness, so text won't
be pixelated - just blurred.

Try to look at the differences between the sans-serif and the serif
parts in the PDF file. Headers and paragraph headers in bold (Helvetica
TT) are not blurred, while corsive text (ANSI Helvetica Corsiva Type 1)
inline in the serif bodytext are blurred.

[PhillipJones]

My advice would be on that computer to dis able the Times and Helvetica
types other than the newsest version of TruType. and on it use a
Utility called FontXchange to change it to OT format then get rid of
everything but OTF verions. Then remove all font caches. then open up
acrobat an create your PDF.

If you create a scan of document instead and make a Graphic please use
PNG as the originating format to create the PDF from.

PNG is a Lossless Format. Jpg is a Lossy Format That degrades each and
everytime it is openned and resaved. just the act of opening the file to
look at it and closing it will degrade it.

jpg is the absolute worst graphic version to use. Tiff is the best and
next best is PNG.

[Erik Richard Sørensen]

PhillipJones wrote:

> Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:
>> I think I may have found where the problem is... The fonts used in the
>> PDF are Helvetica and Times... Helvetica is used for sans-serif headers
>> and corsives, Times for body text.
>>
>> The fonts are not the modern TTF or OTF versions but the old ANSI Type 1
>> and in few places Times ANSI TrueType, - no mentioning of present
>> PostScript fonts or any AFM tables for use with PS anywhere...
>>
>> The bodytext is mostly in ANSI Times Type 1 and if you don't have all
>> the various sizes present for Acrobat (here Acrobat 7.0) you will get
>> blurred text in sizes larger than the present size. - I.e. if you have a
>> 12p present but use it in 13p it will get apprx. 8-10% blurred. - The
>> larger difference between the present font size and the actual used
>> size, the more blur until the limit is reached and the text instead gets
>> pixelated. If I recall right the limit for ANSI Times Type 1 is +2p.
>>
>> Using Acrobat 5.x or newer will automatically try to compensate for
>> missing font sizes in Type 1 fonts - and funny enough I've noticed that
>> doing so with some ANSI fonts, the text gets grey - more or less -
>> probably because doing it this way, will dim the blurness, so text won't
>> be pixelated - just blurred.
>>
>> Try to look at the differences between the sans-serif and the serif
>> parts in the PDF file. Headers and paragraph headers in bold (Helvetica
>> TT) are not blurred, while corsive text (ANSI Helvetica Corsiva Type 1)
>> inline in the serif bodytext are blurred.
>

> My advice would be on that computer to dis able the Times and Helvetica
> types other than the newsest version of TruType. and on it use a
> Utility called FontXchange to change it to OT format then get rid of
> everything but OTF verions. Then remove all font caches. then open up
> acrobat an create your PDF.

Hm, I don't think that would be necessary if the creating computer is
using a normal OS X or Windows 2000 or newer. The Times versions
included with OS X are OTF and TTF in Win2000.

Latest versions that I'm aware of where the Type 1 fonts are included is
Mac System 7.1.0 (as single typefaces along with a TT font in the
suitcase) and Windows 3.01r3 (T1 and TTF seperately).

> If you create a scan of document instead and make a Graphic please use
> PNG as the originating format to create the PDF from.
>
> PNG is a Lossless Format. Jpg is a Lossy Format That degrades each and
> everytime it is openned and resaved. just the act of opening the file to
> look at it and closing it will degrade it.
>
> jpg is the absolute worst graphic version to use. Tiff is the best and
> next best is PNG.

I agree quite a lot with you here. - I prefer TIFF instead of PNG. But
mostly I use an uncompressed JPEG with layer dubbing instead because
it's faster to work with.

[PhillipJones]

You'd be surprised I I used a utility called Font Doctor on mine I
discovered I had some type 1 Postscript fonts some Apple TruType, some
windows TTF and some some OpenType

I then used FontXchange to converted all to OpenType Truetype Based
fonts. I've had no font issues since.

[Erik Richard Sørensen]

PhillipJones wrote:
> Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:

>> PhillipJones wrote:
>>> My advice would be on that computer to dis able the Times and
>>> Helvetica types other than the newsest version of TruType. and on it
>>> use a Utility called FontXchange to change it to OT format then get
>>> rid of everything but OTF verions. Then remove all font caches. then
>>> open up acrobat an create your PDF.
>>
>> Hm, I don't think that would be necessary if the creating computer is
>> using a normal OS X or Windows 2000 or newer. The Times versions
>> included with OS X are OTF and TTF in Win2000.
>>
>> Latest versions that I'm aware of where the Type 1 fonts are included is
>> Mac System 7.1.0 (as single typefaces along with a TT font in the
>> suitcase) and Windows 3.01r3 (T1 and TTF seperately).
>>
>>> If you create a scan of document instead and make a Graphic please use
>>> PNG as the originating format to create the PDF from.
>>>
>>> PNG is a Lossless Format. Jpg is a Lossy Format That degrades each and
>>> everytime it is openned and resaved. just the act of opening the file
>>> to look at it and closing it will degrade it.
>>>
>>> jpg is the absolute worst graphic version to use. Tiff is the best and
>>> next best is PNG.
>>
>> I agree quite a lot with you here. - I prefer TIFF instead of PNG. But
>> mostly I use an uncompressed JPEG with layer dubbing instead because
>> it's faster to work with.
>

> You'd be surprised I I used a utility called Font Doctor on mine I
> discovered I had some type 1 Postscript fonts some Apple TruType, some
> windows TTF and some some OpenType

Huh.:-(! - I get cold creepings down my back when I hear the name
FontDoctor.:-( - This 'tool' has caused so many problems on many Macs
both in the older days and now. - I sees problems where no problems are
and overlook existing problems. - I can't tell how many machines I've
recovered for clients after they have played with FontDoctor....

> I then used FontXchange to converted all to OpenType Truetype Based
> fonts. I've had no font issues since.

Hm, if I recall right, FontExchange doesn't handle UTF only TT/TTF fonts
so it won't help you if you'd stumbled upon one of for example the MS
UTF-8 TTF font (with internal UTF-16 mapping) such as
ArialUnicodeMS.TTF. I /have/ tried to convert this font and other
similar fonts into both real Mac TT as well as OTF fonts. - It is simply
impossible because these fonts have a too complex structure for any
convertr app to be able to handle these fonts.

OK, there is 1 possibility... You can use FontForge to redraw each glyph
and the compile the font as an UNIX font and then convert - maybe... -
Good luck if you want to try..-) - A font like ArialUnicodeMS.TTF
contains more than 244.000 glyphs from 3p to at least 1024p for each
size.:-) - The new MS Times.TTF Unicode is half the size. - The Times
Type 1's used in the PDF here has only 244 glyphs per character per
typeface....

You shouldn't have had any problems either if both the Type 1, PS font
driver and AFM table are present for each typeface. But if just one of
these elements are missing or a different version in a single typeface,
it /will/ give trouble on the whole font. - By converting you probably
then have made a work-around so you will avoid these problems.

I have more than 336.000 fonts on my main machine (apprx. 1400 always
active) - both in sets, single activated, system activated, auto
activated, auto substitution, etc. - all managed with Linotyhpe
Fontexplorer. This way of handling fonts works just fine.

This was also this that caused that I weren't able to see the blur in
the OP's PDF until I saw the screenshot. But after disabling auto
functions and again look at the PDF, it is terrible. Next I then
examined which fonts were used, and it was here that I found that most
fonts are Type 1 and no PS font driver present and no substitutins set
or embedded - probably a 10p font increased to 11,5p or 12p.

If the composer of the PDF had been aware of these things and instead
just used a simple TT or TTF font, he'd also avoided the blur problems.

[nospam]

In article <jshviu$1id$1...@news.albasani.net>, PhillipJones

<pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> If you create a scan of document instead and make a Graphic please use
> PNG as the originating format to create the PDF from.
>
> PNG is a Lossless Format. Jpg is a Lossy Format That degrades each and
> everytime it is openned and resaved. just the act of opening the file to
> look at it and closing it will degrade it.

jpeg does *not* degrade by merely opening it to look at the image.
where in the world did you get that absurd idea?

a jpeg will degrade if you make a change and resave it. it's possible
for the degradation to be localized to where the change occurred
although not that many jpeg engines do that. it's also possible to
losslessly rotate a jpeg with no degradation.

> jpg is the absolute worst graphic version to use. Tiff is the best and
> next best is PNG.

jpeg works fine for many things, however text is not one of them
because of the high frequencies. tiff is a poor choice for pretty much
everything because it's usually not compressed.

[nospam]

In article <jollyroger-43A92...@news.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> > > > > > <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
> > > > > > <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD
> > > > > > 2600 Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
> > > > > text.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
> > >
> > > How sure are you that the text is real text?
> >
> > because the text can be selected & copied, then pasted into something
> > else. that's not possible if it was scanned.
>
> Wrong. As Wayne C. Morris mentioned, and as ~+ has shown the text you
> are seeing in the PDF is scanned text:

not surprisingly, you don't understand it. the text is real text and is
*not* 'scanned text' as you call it. the text is a hidden *secondary*
component of the document in addition to the scanned image.

furthermore, the origin of the text is unknown. there is no evidence it
was derived from a scan and because of ocr errors, it probably wasn't.
it's very likely that the text was from taken the original manuscript
to avoid such errors.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <290620121231412074%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-43A92...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
> > > > > > > <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI
> > > > > > > Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview
> > > > > > > and Safari.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise"
> > > > > > surrounding the text.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
> > > >
> > > > How sure are you that the text is real text?
> > >
> > > because the text can be selected & copied, then pasted into something
> > > else. that's not possible if it was scanned.
> >
> > Wrong. As Wayne C. Morris mentioned, and as ~+ has shown the text you
> > are seeing in the PDF is scanned text:
> >
> > Wrong. As Wayne C. Morris mentioned, and as ~+ has shown the text you
> > are seeing in the PDF is scanned text:
> >

> > In article <jsfuis$ram$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, ~ą <in...@nospam.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 27/6/12 21:39 , Wayne C. Morris wrote:
> > >
> > > > I suspect it was scanned and OCR'd, with the OCR'd text
> > > > invisible or behind the scan image. It's a method of turning a
> > > > printed book into a PDF and preserving the visual appearance
> > > > without having to recreate the fonts and formatting perfectly,
> > > > and still be able to select & copy the text.
> > >
> > > Exactly. There's hidden OCR'd text:
> > >
> > > http://www.marcoklobas.net/sharing/PDF_OCR_1.png
> > > http://www.marcoklobas.net/sharing/PDF_OCR_2.png
> > >
> > > Bye.
> >
> > Now I predict you'll try to weasel out by trying to convince
> > yourself that you were right all along, and that the rest of the
> > world is wrong, as usual. Have fun with that.
>

> not surprisingly, you don't understand it. the text is real text and is
> *not* 'scanned text' as you call it. the text is a hidden *secondary*
> component of the document in addition to the scanned image.

Just couldn't help yourself, huh? You're nothing if not completely
predictable.

And you're a complete MORON if you think I don't understand what was
clearly stated by Wayne C. Morris and ~+ above. The fact is the reason
the text appears blurry is because what is being displayed is a scanned
image. Jamie asked why the text appeared blurry, and that is why.
Rewording it in your own words doesn't change it. You can try dancing
around it all you want. You can even wear a little pink tutu if you
want. Knock yourself out.

You really can't ever admit you are wrong. You sad, sad person. Get a
life.

> furthermore, the origin of the text is unknown. there is no evidence it
> was derived from a scan and because of ocr errors, it probably wasn't.

Grow up, child. It doesn't matter whether the text was specifically
scanned or not. That's obviously not the point. The point is it's a
rasterized image, which is why it appears to be "blurry".

> it's very likely that the text was from taken the original manuscript
> to avoid such errors.

Irrelevant.

Do keep on arguing for the sake of argument though. You seem to enjoy it
so much.

[nospam]

In article <jollyroger-900D5...@news.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> The point is it's a
> rasterized image, which is why it appears to be "blurry".

that was never in dispute, no matter how hard you try to twist it.

you said it wasn't real text. you were wrong. it is. it is *not*
'scanned text' as you previously claimed.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <290620121300044217%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-900D5...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > The point is it's a
> > rasterized image, which is why it appears to be "blurry".
>
> that was never in dispute, no matter how hard you try to twist it.

The only one twisting things around is you. Nice try.

> you said it wasn't real text. you were wrong.

Don't try to put words in my mouth, fucknuts. You'll fail. Here's what I
actually did say:

> > > > How sure are you that the text is real text?

Can you comprehend the difference between a statement and a question, or
is that also not present in your delusional-based vocabulary? Note that
I didn't state my opinion either way.

> it is. it is *not* 'scanned text' as you previously claimed.

I'm not the one who made that claim. That would be Wayne C. Morris - and
it was backed up by ~ą:

> In article <jsfuis$ram$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, ~ą <in...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 27/6/12 21:39 , Wayne C. Morris wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect it was scanned and OCR'd, with the OCR'd text
> > > invisible or behind the scan image. It's a method of turning a
> > > printed book into a PDF and preserving the visual appearance
> > > without having to recreate the fonts and formatting perfectly,
> > > and still be able to select & copy the text.
> >
> > Exactly. There's hidden OCR'd text:
> >
> > http://www.marcoklobas.net/sharing/PDF_OCR_1.png
> > http://www.marcoklobas.net/sharing/PDF_OCR_2.png
> >
> > Bye.

If you have a problem with their opinions, you can take it up with them.

Personally, I'm more inclined to respect their opinions over anything
you have to say about it, since you haven't shown a shred of evidence of
anything that might dispute what either of them said. If you don't like
it, tough fucking titties, loser.

[PhillipJones]

I've never had an issue with font doctor. It will only report Type 1
fons that have one part or the other missing if the fonts are available.
you can use FontXchange to create OT TrueType based Font. I have no idea
about the font type your talking about if I buy fonts, I buy OT
versions only.

MS Office2011 only excepts TrueType (mac and PC versions) and open type
only will not recognize type1 postscript or will automatically sub
something else. More applications are getting this way.

[Király]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> you said it wasn't real text. you were wrong. it is. it is *not*
> 'scanned text' as you previously claimed.

It *is* scanned text. You are basing your disbelief of that on the text
being copy and pasteable.

What you don't understand is that An OCR app was run across the scanned
image to make the text selectable in a PDF document.

I was once a director of a non-profit and I was reviewing our
incorporation documents from the 1970s, that someone had helpfully
scanned, OCRed, and PDFed in the same way. Damn useful.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[Erik Richard Sørensen]

Kiraly, when a text is scanned and saved as an image you cannot run ANY
OCR application over it to make it selectable - no matter if you use
OmniPage Std./Pro, FineReader, READIris, TextBridge or any other OCR app
to make a once saved image partially selectable and copible.

If a text is scanned and saved as text - TXT, DOC, RTF etc., you can
re-run any OCR app in mode 'Scan From File'. This text will also be
selectable as text. This is sometimes used if/when you want to put
either an image inline into the text or to place a transparent picture
over the text. But this double-scanning willnot blur the text from the
original scans.

But as I already have written, the text is probably scanned using Type 1
fonts as the PDF file tells. And using Type 1 fonts in wrong sizes DO
BLUR any text - nothing more, nothing less!

[nospam]

In article <jslgsa$mq8$1...@dont-email.me>, Király <m...@home.spamsucks.ca>

wrote:

> > you said it wasn't real text. you were wrong. it is. it is *not*
> > 'scanned text' as you previously claimed.
>
> It *is* scanned text.

it's a scanned *image* with the actual text as a separate component.

> You are basing your disbelief of that on the text
> being copy and pasteable.

the text that is selectable is real text. it *has* to be. you can't
select text from an image.

> What you don't understand is that An OCR app was run across the scanned
> image to make the text selectable in a PDF document.

you don't know that. more likely the text was from the original
manuscript rather than ocr because ocr is not 100% accurate.

[Király]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> you don't know that. more likely the text was from the original
> manuscript rather than ocr because ocr is not 100% accurate.

Have you seen page xiii? Text that is copy and pasteable, that was
originally hand drawn with a pencil. Or how about the photograph of the
Wall Street Journal on page 33. I can even copy and paste a few bits of
its headline:

T!{E WALL
0
5SSB

Still not convinced that's it's OCR from a scanned book? If you aren't
then I give up.

[nospam]

In article <jsltbb$ebb$1...@dont-email.me>, Király <m...@home.spamsucks.ca>

wrote:

> > you don't know that. more likely the text was from the original
> > manuscript rather than ocr because ocr is not 100% accurate.
>
> Have you seen page xiii? Text that is copy and pasteable, that was
> originally hand drawn with a pencil. Or how about the photograph of the
> Wall Street Journal on page 33. I can even copy and paste a few bits of
> its headline:
>
> T!{E WALL
> 0
> 5SSB
>
> Still not convinced that's it's OCR from a scanned book? If you aren't
> then I give up.

i didn't check the document to see what they did. all i did was copy
some text from a random page. it does look like they used ocr, and why
anyone would use ocr when the original manuscript was available is
bizarre.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <jsltbb$ebb$1...@dont-email.me>, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király)
wrote:

He'll refuse to admit he is wrong, to the last. He can't ever admit he
is wrong about anything, because in his delusional world, he is smarter
than you, and cannot be wrong.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <300620120737296040%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

Well eat my words, it appears he *is* capable of admitting he is wrong.
Is there hope for nospam after all?!

[Wayne C. Morris]

In article <300620120737296040%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Perhaps because the original manuscript is NOT available? The book is over 20
years old and apparently out of print. Guy Kawasaki may have lost or deleted
his original files, or they may be in a now-defunct proprietary format which he
can't open anymore.

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-30-2012 11:45, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Well eat my words, it appears he*is* capable of admitting he is wrong.

> Is there hope for nospam after all?!

It's not the first time, though it does seem to be rare.
But if you thought it was futile, why did you waste so much time arguing
with him?

--
Wes Groleau

There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-29-2012 15:31, nospam wrote:

> <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>> PNG is a Lossless Format. Jpg is a Lossy Format That degrades each and
>> everytime it is openned and resaved. just the act of opening the file to
>> look at it and closing it will degrade it.
>
> jpeg does *not* degrade by merely opening it to look at the image.

He said opened and RESAVED.

> where in the world did you get that absurd idea?

Where in the world did you get the absurd idea that you have to
contradict everyone?


--
Wes Groleau

Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana!
http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/

[Jolly Roger]

In article <jsocj2$p1a$1...@dont-email.me>,

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 06-29-2012 15:31, nospam wrote:
> > <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> >> PNG is a Lossless Format. Jpg is a Lossy Format That degrades each and
> >> everytime it is openned and resaved. just the act of opening the file to
> >> look at it and closing it will degrade it.
> >
> > jpeg does *not* degrade by merely opening it to look at the image.
>
> He said opened and RESAVED.
>
> > where in the world did you get that absurd idea?
>
> Where in the world did you get the absurd idea that you have to
> contradict everyone?

That's easy: He truly believes he is smarter and better than everyone
else. Therefore, everyone else is always wrong, and he is always right.
He's the stereotypical delusional know-it-all.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <jsocco$o8e$1...@dont-email.me>,

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 06-30-2012 11:45, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > Well eat my words, it appears he*is* capable of admitting he is wrong.
> > Is there hope for nospam after all?!
>
> It's not the first time, though it does seem to be rare.
> But if you thought it was futile, why did you waste so much time arguing
> with him?

Apparently because I get something out of it.

[PhillipJones]

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article<jsocj2$p1a$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>> On 06-29-2012 15:31, nospam wrote:
>>> <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>>>> PNG is a Lossless Format. Jpg is a Lossy Format That degrades each and
>>>> everytime it is openned and resaved. just the act of opening the file to
>>>> look at it and closing it will degrade it.
>>>
>>> jpeg does *not* degrade by merely opening it to look at the image.
>>
>> He said opened and RESAVED.
>>
>>> where in the world did you get that absurd idea?
>>
>> Where in the world did you get the absurd idea that you have to
>> contradict everyone?
>
> That's easy: He truly believes he is smarter and better than everyone
> else. Therefore, everyone else is always wrong, and he is always right.
> He's the stereotypical delusional know-it-all.
>

If the implication that I am smarter than everyone else, Nothing could
be further from the truth. I do read a lot ,and the information about
jpeg degrading by the act of opening the file I read on the internet.
The statement was based on the fact that most all computers, and most
browsers compress Jpeg files. The act of compression throws away
/removes un needed pixels in the act of compression. when File is
decompressed it uses Compression software's Best guess of what those
thrown away pixels were. so the act of opening a closing a jpeg file.
We went through this discussion on the Adobe Forums and at one time
rgeir were expamples of the degradation. Some of the people that
participated in this discusion are heavry hitters in the Graphic industry.

So you can take the information as you want.

I am by far no expert. I have been a Mac owner/user since SE/30 Days
(about 1976).

[Wayne C. Morris]

In article <jsocj2$p1a$1...@dont-email.me>,
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 06-29-2012 15:31, nospam wrote:
> > <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> >> PNG is a Lossless Format. Jpg is a Lossy Format That degrades each and
> >> everytime it is openned and resaved. just the act of opening the file to
> >> look at it and closing it will degrade it.
> >
> > jpeg does *not* degrade by merely opening it to look at the image.
>
> He said opened and RESAVED.

PhillipJones *started* by saying "resaved", but then he went on to say "just the
act of opening the file to look at it and closing it will degrade it". Nothing
in that second sentence about resaving; just open, look, and close.

[nospam]

In article <jsocj2$p1a$1...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau

<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> >> PNG is a Lossless Format. Jpg is a Lossy Format That degrades each and
> >> everytime it is openned and resaved. just the act of opening the file to
> >> look at it and closing it will degrade it.
> >
> > jpeg does *not* degrade by merely opening it to look at the image.
>
> He said opened and RESAVED.

yes he did, but he *also* said:
> >> just the act of opening the file to
> >> look at it and closing it will degrade it.

that is flat out false.

> > where in the world did you get that absurd idea?
>
> Where in the world did you get the absurd idea that you have to
> contradict everyone?

i don't contradict everyone. i do, however, correct statements that are
false, such as the one above.

[nospam]

In article <jsprgv$ubs$1...@news.albasani.net>, PhillipJones

<pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> If the implication that I am smarter than everyone else, Nothing could
> be further from the truth. I do read a lot ,and the information about
> jpeg degrading by the act of opening the file I read on the internet.

not everything you read on the internet is true.

> The statement was based on the fact that most all computers, and most
> browsers compress Jpeg files.

browsers only uncompress jpeg files. other software can compress or
decompress jpegs, depending if it's saving or reading the file.

> The act of compression throws away
> /removes un needed pixels in the act of compression. when File is
> decompressed it uses Compression software's Best guess of what those
> thrown away pixels were. so the act of opening a closing a jpeg file.
> We went through this discussion on the Adobe Forums and at one time
> rgeir were expamples of the degradation. Some of the people that
> participated in this discusion are heavry hitters in the Graphic industry.

then you misunderstood what you read.

opening and closing a jpeg file without making changes will *not*
degrade the original file. how could it, since nothing is written back.

only if you make a change to the image is there a possibility of
degradation, but not in all cases, lossless rotate being a key example.

> So you can take the information as you want.

i did, and it's false.

> I am by far no expert. I have been a Mac owner/user since SE/30 Days
> (about 1976).

you would have to be an expert in time travel to have had an se/30 13
years before it was released.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <jsprgv$ubs$1...@news.albasani.net>,
PhillipJones <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article<jsocj2$p1a$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 06-29-2012 15:31, nospam wrote:
> >>> <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> >>>> PNG is a Lossless Format. Jpg is a Lossy Format That degrades each and
> >>>> everytime it is openned and resaved. just the act of opening the file to
> >>>> look at it and closing it will degrade it.
> >>>
> >>> jpeg does *not* degrade by merely opening it to look at the image.
> >>
> >> He said opened and RESAVED.
> >>
> >>> where in the world did you get that absurd idea?
> >>
> >> Where in the world did you get the absurd idea that you have to
> >> contradict everyone?
> >
> > That's easy: He truly believes he is smarter and better than everyone
> > else. Therefore, everyone else is always wrong, and he is always right.
> > He's the stereotypical delusional know-it-all.
>
> If the implication that I am smarter than everyone else

I think maybe you didn't follow the attribution correctly and got
confused. I was replying to Wes Groleau, who had replied to nospam. I
was talking about nospam - not about you.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <1kmdy3y.1v406enr2pn0jN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1kmdtdu.9gh3f8honwm5N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,

> > > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> > >
> > > > <http://guykawasaki.typepad.com/TheMacintoshWay.pdf>
> > > >
> > > > Screenshot of the burry to the point of being unreadable text:
> > > > <http://i.imgur.com/3Pg9i.png>
> > > >
> > > > Appears blurry on Mid-2007 24" 2.8GHz iMac, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 2600
> > > > Pro 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.6.8 using Preview and Safari.
> > >
> > > Bad scan. Lots of what looks like JPG "mosquito noise" surrounding the
> > > text.
> > >

> > > Isaac

> >
> > Yeah but the text is real text. This PDF isn't simply scanned images.
>

> How sure are you that the text is real text?
>

> What application did you use to create the PDF, and with what settings?

Been away a week, so forgive the late reply. Because I can copy and
paste the text, and I didn't create this PDF. The author or someone he
employs did. You don't recognise the name of both the book and author?
:-)
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Ok, I did not intend to start an argument with my query. Can anyone tell
me if there is a cheap or better yet free way to remove the scanned
image behind the real text, or whatever it is that's causing the
blurriness?

TIA,
Jamie Kahn Genet