Problems with equations

[JenShumate]

I'm working on a document right now that has a ton of equations in it. I've already setup all of the equations in Flare, but I stumbled across a problem yesterday. When I create my output, it looks just fine on-screen. However, when I print the document, the equations come out very blurry. I'm generating Word output, generally, but I have the same problem when I try generating WebHelp output too. I'm not sure if this is a problem with the equation itself, or if it's something that has happen when the equations are converted to .png files during the build process.

I also have MathType, so I took a screenshot so you see the difference. Here's what it looks like on the screen.

Equation_OnScreen.png

Which looks great, but here's what happens when I print:

Equation_Printed.png

I don't know if there's anything that I can do to fix this, but I'm really unhappy with the way the Flare equations print out. This paper is going to land directly on the desk of the VP of R&D, and I have no idea if he'll print the document out or read it on-screen, but I would like to have printed results that look like the MathType equation, just in case. I can re-create the equations in MathType and link them in Flare as external items, but it took me about a day and a half to create the Flare ones, so I don't really want to do that. Any suggestions?

[LTinker68]

In the PDF target there's an option to downsample images above a certain dpi. If that's checked, try disabling it.

[JenShumate]

What about for Word output?

Also, I tried an experiment. I created the equation in MathType, saved it as .wmf file and imported it into Flare as an image. That printed out just fine, but I really don't want to recreate all of those equations.

[LTinker68]

Yeah, sorry, I haven't used the equation feature at all. I just happened to create a new PDF target the other day and remember that bit about the downsampling. I don't build Word outputs anymore and I don't remember if its target has something comparable, although I'd be surprised if it turned out badly in Word. For all its faults, Word does display resized images really well, at least when you print.

Hopefully someone else who uses the equation feature and does PDF output can provide some help.

[MaryM]

Has anyone come up with a fix or suggestions for improving the fuzzy, faded equations in print? I'm seeing the same problem, the equations look good online but are small and faint in the PDF.
TIA.

[JenShumate]

I was never able to get Flare's equation editor to print worth a damn from Word, but I also haven't fooled with it since I switched back to MathType. I would really recommend getting MathType for your equations - there's no issues with printing, and you can set the images to be transparent. The Flare equation editor forces you to have a background color, which is inconvenient because my symbols are defined in table with alternating gray rows.

If you get MathType, here's how I've been using them with Flare:
Create your equation in MathType. If transparency is something you need, there's an option for it under Preferences --> Web and GIF Preferences.
Save the equation as a WMF file, one equation per file.
Import the images into Flare like you would any other equation.
When you generate your Word output, the equations will show up huge. If you set up them to be transparent, they will also appear to have a white background.

huge_equation.png

Save the pictures in the Word document (File --> Edit links --> Highlight all and check "Save picture in document"). Your equations will then show up normally, and transparency should be working as intended.

normal_equation.png

You can set up an image style to keep the images from being so large initially. There's no impact on the final product, but it lets you skip saving the pictures in the document every time you want to look at the generated document - for example, if you're just want to test out a style change or want to print a copy for proofing/editing. I think it may also help prevent issues with auto-sized table columns/rows - I can't remember for sure what fixed the issues I was having with that. Here's the style I created:

Code: Select all

img.eq
{
	height: auto;
	margin: 0px;
	width: 0.5em;
}

I don't think it matters if you set the width to something else - the images in the final document are the same size, with or without the style above. The other thing you'll need to do is go into your target and uncheck the option to generate resized copies of scaled images. Not only will Flare have an aneurism over the em sizing, but you'll still end up with huge equations because Flare will use the original image dimensions.

You can download a trial version of MathType here. Fortunately, the full version isn't too expensive - $100 for a regular license. I've been using it regularly for the past several months, and I've been very pleased with it. One tip - do not edit the WMF equation files in any program except MathType. If you do, MathType will not be able to open the file and you will have to recreate the equation from scratch if you need to change anything.

[wbrisett]

The strange part is flare is using MathType. They are simply using the API from it. Sounds like a bug that you should log with MadCap.

Wayne

[JenShumate]

I think it's a limited version of MathType - the product name comes up as MathFlow, but it's made by the same company. Honestly, I had no problem with the editor itself, aside from the transparency issue. I think the problem is related to the vector images. According to the help file, only PDF output generates vector images. Equations are stuck into PNG images for any other output type. I understand the need to be able to generate PNG files rather than vector images, but it ought to be an option in the target settings - regardless of what type of output it is for.

[LTinker68]

Equations are stuck into PNG images for any other output type. I understand the need to be able to generate PNG files rather than vector images, but it ought to be an option in the target settings - regardless of what type of output it is for.

It should only be an option if the output supports vector images -- not all do. However, PNG supports transparencies, so even if it's generating PNGs, the transparency should work. (Except in IE6, which doesn't support transparencies in PNG files -- that only became supported after IE7.)

[Andrew]

When you say "printout" do you mean PDF / Word output viewed on a computer screen, or do you mean literally printed on the page?

[JenShumate]

I mean literally printed out on paper. On a computer screen, either in Word or PDF, the equations look perfectly clear. When you print the Word output, though, the equations are blurry. In PDF output, they print fine. In my opinion, vector images should be support in Word and PDF output.

[Andrew]

Tried to reproduce this, but honestly, in Word, it looks the same on-screen to me as it does in print (that is to say, it looks pretty crappy in both cases). I'm not sure why it uses a PNG instead of a vector, since I'm pretty sure Word supports vector images.

[NorthEast]

I did a quick test.

In PDFs, the equations look reasonable on screen but are not pin-sharp, and when printed they're readable but slightly fuzzy, and certainly not as sharp as other text on the page.

Interestingly, when you zoom in on the PDF, the equations actually appear to be raster images rather than vectors; i.e. when you zoom in you can see the pixels, but if they were vectors you should see smooth edges. However, the help says it uses vectors for PDFs - so is the help wrong?

When you generate output, your equations are converted to images in the appropriate format. If you build PDF output, the equations are converted to vector images. If you build any other type of output, the equations are converted to raster images (PNG files).

When I generate Word output, the equations look quite fuzzy both on screen and when printed, and are markedly worse than PDF.

For sharpness/quality; I'd mark 6/10 for PDF output, and 3/10 for Word (I wouldn't want to use it for any published documents).

[JenShumate]

Tried to reproduce this, but honestly, in Word, it looks the same on-screen to me as it does in print (that is to say, it looks pretty crappy in both cases). I'm not sure why it uses a PNG instead of a vector, since I'm pretty sure Word supports vector images.

Really? How interesting. I fiddled with this again this morning - it's been awhile - and I noticed something odd. I was thinking of switching over to PDF output, so I generated a document in PDF for the first time in months. Then I noticed that, for some reason, equations look sort of crappy on screen in PDF format but they print just fine. On a regular white background, the equation is passable but not great. In a shaded table, the equations are essentially illegible (and the table itself looks like crap too). I don't remember the PDF output looking badly on screen before, but it's been awhile. Maybe I'm losing my mind. Printed out, they still don't look as nice as MathType, but it looks a bit better if you increase the font size a bit from the default.

[Andrew]

Tried to reproduce this, but honestly, in Word, it looks the same on-screen to me as it does in print (that is to say, it looks pretty crappy in both cases). I'm not sure why it uses a PNG instead of a vector, since I'm pretty sure Word supports vector images.

Really? How interesting. I fiddled with this again this morning - it's been awhile - and I noticed something odd. I was thinking of switching over to PDF output, so I generated a document in PDF for the first time in months. Then I noticed that, for some reason, equations look sort of crappy on screen in PDF format but they print just fine. On a regular white background, the equation is passable but not great. In a shaded table, the equations are essentially illegible (and the table itself looks like crap too). I don't remember the PDF output looking badly on screen before, but it's been awhile. Maybe I'm losing my mind. Printed out, they still don't look as nice as MathType, but it looks a bit better if you increase the font size a bit from the default.

That may be related to what seems to be a bug in Adobe Reader / Acrobat's display capabilities. If you zoom to 125% on screen, you'll probably see most of the problems disappear. There are settings in Reader that help this (things like "Enhance Thin Lines" and such), but they then hurt other things. If I view my PNG screen caps at 100% in Reader, they look like crap (ditto for tables -- if I have 1px / 1pt borders in my tables, they frequently render incorrectly until zoomed to 125%), but then if I print them, they are fine. Not sure if that is the same issue you are seeing.