[GRASSLIST:5083] Re: ps.map and PNG driver comparison

[Miha Staut]

 --- Hamish <hamish_nospam at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> > > The number of cells used by the PNG driver will
> be
> > > resampled to fit in
> > > the monitor height and width, after the region
> > > resolution resampling.
> > 
> > I set the environment variables GRASS_WIDTH and
> > GRASS_HEIGHT to match the g.region -p output, so
> the
> > PNG file should have exactly the same number of
> rows
> > and columns as ps.map output. But even printed to
> > paper (same size) the maps in detail look
> different.
> > The postscript file looks more "edgy" while the
> png
> > file looks smoother. I tried to print some
> > topographical maps with generaly rasterized line
> data.
> 
> 
> what program are you using to print out the PNG
> file? It is likely that
> is doing some smoothing (GIMP print filters, etc.) ?
> 
> Is it better detail or just soothness?
> 
> 
> Hamish


I think just smoothness (printed with Photoshop 5.0).
I know that this does not regard GRASS necesarily but
also the ps2pdf command when displayed and printed
produced a kind of "preview". I will try to send you
an example but currently I can not as I am not at my
computer now. 

Thanks, Miha Staut


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com