Sampling: What Nyquist Didn't Say, and What to Do About It

I know there's a few people out there who actually read the papers that I 
post on my web site.

I also know that the papers have gotten a bit ragged, and that I haven't 
been maintaining them.

So here: I've made a start.

http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf

My intent (with apologies to all of you with dial-up), is to convert the 
ratty HTML documents to pdf as time permits, and in a way that leaves the 
documents easily maintainable and in a form that is easy to look at from 
the web or to print out, as you desire.

-- 
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Dnia 20-12-2010 o 08:34:44 Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> napisa=B3(=
a):

> I know there's a few people out there who actually read the papers tha=
t I
> post on my web site.
>
> I also know that the papers have gotten a bit ragged, and that I haven=
't
> been maintaining them.
>
> So here: I've made a start.
>
> http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
>
> My intent (with apologies to all of you with dial-up), is to convert t=
he
> ratty HTML documents to pdf as time permits, and in a way that leaves =
the
> documents easily maintainable and in a form that is easy to look at fr=
om
> the web or to print out, as you desire.
>

My first thought was that fonts look a little bit to thin and bright.
I use AcrobatReader 9.4.1, preferences/rendering: LCD,all options checke=
d.

-- =

Mikolaj

Hi Tim,

On 12/20/2010 12:34 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> I also know that the papers have gotten a bit ragged, and that I haven't
> been maintaining them.
>
> My intent (with apologies to all of you with dial-up), is to convert the
> ratty HTML documents to pdf as time permits, and in a way that leaves the
> documents easily maintainable and in a form that is easy to look at from
> the web or to print out, as you desire.

I've not looked at the document(s).  But, if you think
carefully about how you build a PDF (e.g., which fonts
you embed, what resolution you use for images, etc.)
you can exert a great deal of control over the finished
size of the document.  (you also need to consider which
PDF version you support -- it's annoying each time
Adobe creates a new version of Reader/Acrobat and you
are forced to upgrade just to view someone else's "new"
document).

For example, when I include detailed photos, I deliberately
chose high enough resolutions that allow the user (reader)
to "zoom" to examine high levels of detail without
the image being rendered with jaggies, etc.

Also, note that cropping an image in the PDF doesn't discard
the "invisible" portion of the image.  This can be embarassing
if you think you've hidden (not included) a portion of the
image that isn't "visible"  :>

Finally, note that the PDF is tagged with several items
from your "writing environment" (user name, etc.).  Just
be sure you know what's embedded "behind the scenes".

HTH

Mikolaj wrote:
> Dnia 20-12-2010 o 08:34:44 Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> napisa&#4294967295;(a):
> 
>> I know there's a few people out there who actually read the papers that I
>> post on my web site.
>>
>> I also know that the papers have gotten a bit ragged, and that I haven't
>> been maintaining them.
>>
>> So here: I've made a start.
>>
>> http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
>>
>> My intent (with apologies to all of you with dial-up), is to convert the
>> ratty HTML documents to pdf as time permits, and in a way that leaves the
>> documents easily maintainable and in a form that is easy to look at from
>> the web or to print out, as you desire.
>>
> 
> My first thought was that fonts look a little bit to thin and bright.
> I use AcrobatReader 9.4.1, preferences/rendering: LCD,all options checked.
> 
   I agree, the font makes it very difficult to read, and is not 
conducive to enhancing reading over a long term, namely longer than one 
page..

On 20/12/10 10:16, D Yuniskis wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On 12/20/2010 12:34 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> I also know that the papers have gotten a bit ragged, and that I haven't
>> been maintaining them.
>>
>> My intent (with apologies to all of you with dial-up), is to convert the
>> ratty HTML documents to pdf as time permits, and in a way that leaves the
>> documents easily maintainable and in a form that is easy to look at from
>> the web or to print out, as you desire.
>

Good idea, it looks good.

> I've not looked at the document(s). But, if you think

I have looked at the document - but not read it.  I'll do that when I 
have time to do it justice.

> carefully about how you build a PDF (e.g., which fonts
> you embed, what resolution you use for images, etc.)
> you can exert a great deal of control over the finished

Tim has used pdfLaTeX - the usual tool of choice for publishing 
technical or academic papers.  So the CMR fonts are embedded as needed 
to make the document self-supporting.  The images appear to be vector 
format rather than bitmap, so they scale nicely.

> size of the document. (you also need to consider which
> PDF version you support -- it's annoying each time
> Adobe creates a new version of Reader/Acrobat and you
> are forced to upgrade just to view someone else's "new"
> document).
>

No sane person /chooses/ to use Acrobat Reader any more.  It is annoying 
and insecure bloatware, and spreads itself over far too much of your 
system (hint to Adobe - it's been a decade since it was acceptable for a 
simple application to require a reboot of windows during installation). 
  It is /far/ slower, and takes orders of magnitude more memory than 
common alternatives like Foxit on windows or Evince on Linux.  And it 
has such a bad security record that I am considering banning it from our 
company.  Unfortunately, there are occasions when someone has made a 
document that will only work with the latest Acrobat Reader - and I 
fully agree with you that it is annoying.  But Tim's documents are pdf 
1.4, a very well-supported standard.


> For example, when I include detailed photos, I deliberately
> chose high enough resolutions that allow the user (reader)
> to "zoom" to examine high levels of detail without
> the image being rendered with jaggies, etc.
>

That's a good plan, and something people often forget about - the result 
being documents that look good on-screen, but poor in printout.  In this 
particular case, however, it seems the graphics are in a vector format 
(pdf files support eps), which is the best choice for drawings.

> Also, note that cropping an image in the PDF doesn't discard
> the "invisible" portion of the image. This can be embarassing
> if you think you've hidden (not included) a portion of the
> image that isn't "visible" :>
>

This is seldom an issue with pdf files (though it be, depending on the 
tools used to create it) - it is commonly found in MS Word files.  But 
Tim has used pdfLaTeX - the pdf file contains exactly what he wants it 
to contain.

> Finally, note that the PDF is tagged with several items
> from your "writing environment" (user name, etc.). Just
> be sure you know what's embedded "behind the scenes".
>

Again, pdfLaTeX adds the tags /you/ want it to add, and nothing else. 
But since Tim has his name on the front page, and every page's footer, 
I'm guessing he won't mind if the pdf file is also tagged with his user 
name!

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 01:34:44 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

>I know there's a few people out there who actually read the papers that I 
>post on my web site.
>
>I also know that the papers have gotten a bit ragged, and that I haven't 
>been maintaining them.
>
>So here: I've made a start.
>
>http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
>
>My intent (with apologies to all of you with dial-up), is to convert the 
>ratty HTML documents to pdf as time permits, and in a way that leaves the 
>documents easily maintainable and in a form that is easy to look at from 
>the web or to print out, as you desire.

The fonts are terrible. They seem to be bitmap fonts and not vector.
It looks like you used TeX to generate the document.  Go to
http://www.truetex.com/ for links to quite number of articles on
how to use truetype fonts in TeX.

Regards
  Anton

On a sunny day (Mon, 20 Dec 2010 01:40:32 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
<UO-dnUZyBpEGuZLQnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@posted.localnet>:

>Mikolaj wrote:
>> Dnia 20-12-2010 o 08:34:44 Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> napisa&#4294967295;(a):
>> 
>>> I know there's a few people out there who actually read the papers that I
>>> post on my web site.
>>>
>>> I also know that the papers have gotten a bit ragged, and that I haven't
>>> been maintaining them.
>>>
>>> So here: I've made a start.
>>>
>>> http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
>>>
>>> My intent (with apologies to all of you with dial-up), is to convert the
>>> ratty HTML documents to pdf as time permits, and in a way that leaves the
>>> documents easily maintainable and in a form that is easy to look at from
>>> the web or to print out, as you desire.
>>>
>> 
>> My first thought was that fonts look a little bit to thin and bright.
>> I use AcrobatReader 9.4.1, preferences/rendering: LCD,all options checked.
>> 
>   I agree, the font makes it very difficult to read, and is not 
>conducive to enhancing reading over a long term, namely longer than one 
>page..

I think the fonts look great, watching full screen on a 1680x1050 LCD with
xpdf in Linux.
wget http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
xpdf sampling.pdf

On 20-12-2010 at 11:19:55 David Brown  
<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:


(...)
>
> No sane person /chooses/ to use Acrobat Reader any more.  It is annoying  
> and insecure bloatware, and spreads itself over far too much of your  
> system (hint to Adobe - it's been a decade since it was acceptable for a  
> simple application to require a reboot of windows during installation).  
>   It is /far/ slower, and takes orders of magnitude more memory than  
> common alternatives like Foxit on windows or Evince on Linux.  And it  
> has such a bad security record that I am considering banning it from our  
> company.  Unfortunately, there are occasions when someone has made a  
> document that will only work with the latest Acrobat Reader - and I  
> fully agree with you that it is annoying.  But Tim's documents are pdf  
> 1.4, a very well-supported standard.
(...)

Tank you, I found Foxit a fast an suitable pdf viewer.
I like it.
I also agree that Adobe Reader is extremely annoying and slow
and uncompatible with his own previous versions.
Now Tim's document look better.


-- 
Mikolaj

Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> writes:

> On a sunny day (Mon, 20 Dec 2010 01:40:32 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
> <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
> <UO-dnUZyBpEGuZLQnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@posted.localnet>:
>
>>Mikolaj wrote:
>>> Dnia 20-12-2010 o 08:34:44 Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> napisa&#322;(a):
>>> 
>>>> I know there's a few people out there who actually read the papers that I
>>>> post on my web site.
>>>>
>>>> I also know that the papers have gotten a bit ragged, and that I haven't
>>>> been maintaining them.
>>>>
>>>> So here: I've made a start.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
>>>>
>>>> My intent (with apologies to all of you with dial-up), is to convert the
>>>> ratty HTML documents to pdf as time permits, and in a way that leaves the
>>>> documents easily maintainable and in a form that is easy to look at from
>>>> the web or to print out, as you desire.
>>>>
>>> 
>>> My first thought was that fonts look a little bit to thin and bright.
>>> I use AcrobatReader 9.4.1, preferences/rendering: LCD,all options checked.
>>> 
>>   I agree, the font makes it very difficult to read, and is not 
>>conducive to enhancing reading over a long term, namely longer than one 
>>page..
>
> I think the fonts look great, watching full screen on a 1680x1050 LCD with
> xpdf in Linux.
> wget http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
> xpdf sampling.pdf

No, they do look a bit "bitmapped" I'm afraid. I am also using xpdf in
linux. A minor detail though, still quite readable IMO.

-- 

John Devereux

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 01:34:44 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

>I know there's a few people out there who actually read the papers that I 
>post on my web site.
>
>I also know that the papers have gotten a bit ragged, and that I haven't 
>been maintaining them.
>
>So here: I've made a start.
>
>http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
>
>My intent (with apologies to all of you with dial-up), is to convert the 
>ratty HTML documents to pdf as time permits, and in a way that leaves the 
>documents easily maintainable and in a form that is easy to look at from 
>the web or to print out, as you desire.

Dang, it's like people haven't seen Computer Modern before. Maybe you
need to use Times New Roman, turn off kerning, and ditch the ligatures
so that it "looks right." Maybe it's the em-dashes. Jeez...

I, for one, salute your leet Latex skilz. And thank you for taking the
time to make these available.

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA