Re: lilypond to pdf

[Mats Bengtsson]

> address@hidden writes:
> > when printed, but when viewed in Acrobat Reader (and even gv to a lesser
> > extent) it looks quite bad. Have you tried printing the pdfs out?
> > 
> > Using the above method means that the fonts are encoded into the ps/pdf as
> > bitmaps (300dpi I think, by default). It would be nice to have them embedded
> > as scalable fonts, but no one's come up with a simple way of doing this yet,
> > AFAIK.
> 
> from the man-page:
> 
>        The one current great shortcoming of ps2pdf is that except
>        for the fourteen built-in PDF fonts, it converts all fonts
>        in  the  PostScript  file to bitmap fonts in the PDF file,
>        and scrambles the character codes so that  the  output  is
>        not searchable.  (Normally it produces 720dpi bitmaps, but
>        you can change this using Ghostscript's  -r  option.)   We
>        intend to mostly fix this by the end of 1998.

What ancient ghostscript version do you use? Since version 6.0, 
Ghostscript handles Type1 fonts without any problem.

> Perhaps you can try with Adobe Distiller if you really need good PDF
> files.

It won't give any better output as long as the feta fonts
in the Postscript file are bitmapped. As soon as we can 
produce Type1 versions of the fonts, the PDF files will
be perfect. Now, you get fuzzy-looking note symbols on
the screen since they are bitmapped.

  /Mats