Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: OT: Relevant Doonesbury strip from 1981
Date: 14 Nov 2024 16:35:13 GMT
Organization: loft
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <lpmn61F7mpdU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <49de8a3617f041b988e84c5a12ca817b@www.novabbs.org> <vak9jjt51ba0nlc1at8ml5244908j5apjb@4ax.com> <vh38a7$2di0k$1@epsilon3.eternal-september.org> <rs7cjjtkgu6umjlk634mru8pj3s79uq2p4@4ax.com>
X-Trace: individual.net nyG2ASdu31k0uUqHnfOQ9wJIBrQoVDVi+2dXa2/r9gCYdpgJnH
X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qTX4imEhdW07Tjj0q8uVPHAcLwg= sha256:05au9nDIbWKa8Sfn2YSyDQShLI5MwOIXli9I/LaTDCY=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
Bytes: 3064

In article <rs7cjjtkgu6umjlk634mru8pj3s79uq2p4@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person  <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:13:25 -0600, "Jay E. Morris"
><morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>
>>On 11/13/2024 10:20 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:11:54 +0000, Lenona<lenona321@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> (I'm not sure why I bothered saying "OT" when so many other comic strips
>>>> get mentioned here!)
>>>>
>>>> https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1981/09/20
>>>>
>>>> You can enlarge it.
>>> It's actually easier to read when not enlarged. Apparently, it isn't
>>> the sort of image that enlarges well.
>>
>>
>>That's always a problem with the Doonesbury comics and especially so 
>>with the Sundays. At normal size the type is often too small for me, 
>>even on my 17" screen, and when blown up it just becomes a smudge. 
>>There's a small sweet spot for me where I can just read it.
>
>The current ones on http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/ don't have
>any problem here; CTRL+ done twice (daily) or once (Sunday) is usually
>quite sufficient and no fuzziness appears. (I always return it to
>normal size using CTRL0).
>
>But that depends on the image type. It is apparently a PNG file at
>http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/. But the image in
>https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1981/09/20 appears to be a GIF
>file.
>
>I have long-since forgotten any technical details I ever knew about
>image files. However, I would say that the PNG appears to be something
>that is drawn (and so scales well) while the GIF is a bitmap (which
>doesn't scale well). But, for all I know, they are both bitmaps, and
>the difference is in the HTML of the page they are embedded in.
>-- 
>"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
>Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
>Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

They are both bitmap formats.  In either case you can't get more than
the scan resolution out of them.  I suspect the older strips were scanned
for the early slow-speed web to make them load faster and somebody needs
to rescan them from paper.  (Which would be tedious & expensive for something
nobody is paying for).
-- 
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..