"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Looks like a good treatise on the subject. Nice work.

Thanks   :)

> I'm going through the pdf version page by page (I'm on page 3 so far, slowly
> taking it all in.) Your writing seems clear and technically understandable.

Well, that was the goal, so - so far so good.

> The one problem I see is that the illustrations are kind of fuzzy, or low-rez, which
> makes it hard for me to clearly follow the text and its technical details.
> Those
> illustrations are important (for ME at least, to clearly grasp the concepts).
> Perhaps this is simply some kind of conversion-to-pdf problem?

Could be.   First time I'm really doing this.   There's an option in the
conversion-wizard window to reset image resolution - I'm using 300 dpi, maybe
I'll go up to 600 and see how much better that looks, and how it changes the
file size.
Some of the longer renders might have been done at 640x480 instead of 1024x768
as well....

The renders started out one way, and evolved over time, so there's a variety of
styles, colors, etc.   Curious about what works best and what doesn't - what
should be re-rendered.   What should be kept simple, and what should be given a
bit of raytracing flash to make it "pop".

> About the text font used (and apparently in the illustrations as well): I agree
> with Thomas, a different font would be visually clearer. 'Arial' maybe? That's a
> small quibble though.

I needed a font to use while writing and proof-reading.  Something to keep
things separated so that maybe things would pop out at me.  I might save
changing the typeface until last.  But it is of course one of the things that I
ought to get feedback on.

Post a reply to this message