Re: ps2pk vs. gsftopk

[David Aspinall <da@dcs.ed.ac.uk>]

> I must say that, as it looks now in xdvi, ps2pk bitmaps are worse than
> gsftopk's (which is quite astonishing if the rasterizing code was actually
> use in Lexmark printers...), but I am not sure that gsftopk yields as
> good bitmaps as ghostscript + the good driver.

When I tested this last year I found the opposite!  Indeed, I went to
the extent of writing a MakeTeXPK script to use both programs --- it
reverts to gsftopk when type1 sources aren't available.

That was with a slightly older version of gs, though.  Has the
rendering really improved with 3.33 ?

Karl Berry said:
> Both ghostscript and ps2pk were based on the Type 1 rasterizer IBM
> donated to the X consortium. So modulo any improvements Peter or Piet
> has made, output should be similar. I've never compared the programs'
> output directly.

I wonder if Peter or Piet are listening and could comment?

 - David.