Re: lilypond to pdf

[Mats Bengtsson]

> address@hidden writes:
> > >        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.
> 
> I think 5.5 is the latest GNU ghostscript; anyway, it's standard with
> Redhat 7.

Since I'm not so rigid about GNU licenses, I'm a happy user of
AFPL Ghostscript (formerly called Aladdin Ghostscript), see
http://www.ghostscript.org/

> > > 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.
> 
> Can you try what happens if you use -f ps output of lily?

Here's the result from input/regression/siz20.ly, using
'lilypond -f ps' and 'ly2dvi -P', respectively, followed
by ps2pdf. The outline fonts given by lilypond -f ps are
clearly better. Is it possible to use them in .dvi files
too, to get the best of both worlds?

     /Mats

size20native.pdf
Description: size20native.pdf

size20dvips.pdf
Description: size20dvips.pdf