Re: [hylafax-users] Hylafax FSP DLL for Windows 2000/XP

[Dmitry Bely <dbely@mail.ru>]

Pedro Rocadas <procadas@yahoo.com> writes:

>> Send the same page containing, say, 6pt text in
>> draft mode using WHFC and
>> any commercial Windows fax software, and you'll see
>> the difference even on
>> the ideal line (WHFC's page will be unreadable). The
>> problem is that
>> the quality of Ghostscript rasterizer, that Hylafax
>> uses, cannot even be
>> compared with Windows one.

[...]

> Aaah, I understand your problem now. If the fax fails,
> re-sending the file you loose quality.

Excuse me, but IMHO that's nonsense. When Hylafax resends the job (having
BUSY response from remote or other negative answer), it uses just the same
TIFF as in the first attempt (maybe reformated from 2D-MR to 1D-MR, but it
does not affect the image quatily). What I am talking about, is
TTF fonts->Postscript->bitmap conversion during printing, that Ghostscript
does very bad (probably loosing font hints etc.) On the contrary, Windows
fax service does that in one step (TTF fonts->bitmap), and the quality is
excellent. See attached bitmaps for an example how the same test text is
rasterized.

test-draft-ghostscript.tif

test-draft-windows.tif

test-normal-ghostscript.tif

test-normal-windows.tif

> I ask about
> that on the list and you know what? Just change the
> notify.awk to attach the failed fax in PDF format and
> you will never loose quality again.
>
> <snip>
>
> My apologies Dmitry. I shoulded read the text more
> carefully but I was a bit tired :-))). Just one
> question, why sending files in draft mode?

It's twice faster (so twice cheaper for long distance calls), and Windows
draft mode is better than Ghostscript normal one :-)

- Dmitry Bely