Re: OT: Relevant Doonesbury strip from 1981

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..