Paul Lamar wrote:

This illustrates the problems of doing it this way. As you can
see I cut the file down to roughly 180K and it is barely readable.
It is much better to publish this kind of stuff on the Internet
as plain text with separate jpgs.

Paul,
I will spot you the ~$250 for Acrobat... :-)
[PDFs are the best way for this sort of stuff, *if* you have the
document and not some image scan of it.]

For this time, if you or Ed has a Postscript or Word version, I can
run it through the distiller here at work and get PDFs.

Russell Kent

What kind of input does Acrobat require? I have the reader as most people do.
Also .pdf files tend to be real large. I admit it is a cool way to
publish books and long articles.

Paul Lamar

In my humble opinion, neither jpeg nor Postscript (.pdf) files are very
efficient (.pdf files are massive!)  The most efficient is to use the
original text, if available, and include the images in their proper
places as jpeg's.  One can use Word to put them all together and there
is a freebie Word "reader" that works in Netscape and Explorer.  If you
don't have the original text, use an OCR program.

AI Nut

 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.              Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org