Why is the math output hard to read sometimes?

[chroot]

Testing with ImageMagick...

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\chi(n) }{n^{s}}=\prod_{p\in\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{1}{1-\frac{\chi(p)}{p^{s}}}\right)$$

Another test... $\sqrt{2}$

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Alright folks, tell me what you think of the output now.

- Warren

 

[Hans de Vries]

Testing with ImageMagick...

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\chi(n) }{n^{s}}=\prod_{p\in\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{1}{1-\frac{\chi(p)}{p^{s}}}\right)$$

Another test... $\sqrt{2}$

- Warren

Looks like professional textbook style, Warren.


Regards, Hans

 

[chroot]

Inline TeX needs to look good too... $\sqrt{2}$ should not be confused with $s=j\omega$ or $E=mc^2$

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Yeah, as I suspected, the tools are no longer respecting my baselines... argh. Not a huge problem, though. I might be able to change the way they're aligned in the HTML.

- Warren

 

[robphy]

Testing with ImageMagick...

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\chi(n) }{n^{s}}=\prod_{p\in\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{1}{1-\frac{\chi(p)}{p^{s}}}\right)$$

Another test... $\sqrt{2}$

- Warren

That looks really nice.

I think ImageMagick also uses Ghostscript.
(I really like ImageMagick. If it's too resource-intensive, you might try GraphicsMagick http://www.graphicsmagick.org/ . For many operations, instead of "convert ... " you use "gm convert ..." . Here are some benchmarks: http://www.graphicsmagick.org/benchmarks.html .

 

[robphy]

Are you using the 16-bit ImageMagick?
The 8-bit version would be more than sufficient... and may more easily yield smaller image files.

GIMP complained about one of the images having a layer positioned outside of the visible image. You might have to use a +repage command (http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/basics/#page) to correct that.

The new images do look very nice.

 

[qntty]

If resources are an issue then you might want to look at jsMath because it allows you to download fonts so that the web server doesn't need to process the LaTeX

 

[robphy]

If resources are an issue then you might want to look at jsMath because it allows you to download fonts so that the web server doesn't need to process the LaTeX

You do have to have enable javascript.
Without it, nothing seems to be rendered... although the latex source is embedded (but not displayed) in the html page.

Disable javascript. Then visit
http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/jsMath/examples/ .

Rendered $$\LaTeX$$ looks so much nicer.

I believe the LaTeX is rendered once into an image during authoring.
Then, they are just plain image files served up by the webserver.

The resource-intensiveness probably refers to (say)
the number of CPU cycles and amount of allocated memory during authoring,
placing limits on the number of renderings that can be handled simultaneously.

 

[dx]

It's very light. I can hardly see this: $e^{\ln x} = 7$.

 

[Santa1]

It is maybe a tad too light yes, but I came to this section to feedback you on the new tex rendering, it's beautiful!

 

[chroot]

Hmm. I'll try antialiasing it to gray.

- Warren

 

[tiny-tim]

oooh, that's much better …

$$\frac{dr}{d\tau}\ =\ \pm\sqrt{E^2\ -\ \left(1 - \frac{2M}{r}\right)\left(m^2\ +\ \frac{L^2}{r^2}\right)}$$

and larger too!

Great work, Warren! ​

 

[Moonbear]

Ooh, that last one I can even read easily while sitting here with the small laptop outside with the sun behind me (tends to make things hard to read on the screen as I have added glare)...so good job!

 

[robphy]

$e^{\ln x} = 7$
Maybe a gamma correction would help...

insert in the ImageMagick line
-gamma 0.5
and I think you still need to insert
+repage
after a crop or a trim.

 

[chroot]

Testing 5...

$e^{\ln x} = 7$

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\chi(n) }{n^{s}}=\prod_{p\in\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{1}{1-\frac{\chi(p)}{p^{s}}}\right)$$

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Testing 6...

$e^{\ln x} = 7$

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\chi(n) }{n^{s}}=\prod_{p\in\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{1}{1-\frac{\chi(p)}{p^{s}}}\right)$$

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Thanks for the suggestion, robphy! I went with a gamma of 0.6, which looks nice on my monitor. Let me know what you think. (I added the +repage, too.)

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Just for giggles, check out the LaTeX output as it was introduced almost six years ago. (Wow...)

Open it in a new tab or window, and compare to the output today:

$$\frac{1}{2}$$

$$R^a{}_{bcd}$$

$$\nabla \times C$$

$$\mathbb{RC}$$

$$\lambda_j = \vec{\lambda} \cdot \vec{e}_j$$

$$\lambda_j = \mathbf{\lambda} \cdot \mathbf{e}_j$$

$$v(t) = v_0 + \frac{1}{2} a t^2$$

$$\gamma \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}$$

$$\ddot{x} = \frac {d^2x} {dt^2}$$

$$\overline{x} \hat{x} \check{x} \tilde{x} \acute{x} \grave{x} \dot{x} \ddot{x} \breve{x} \bar{x} \vec{x} \underline{x}$$

$$\begin{align*} ab\\ a b\\ a\! b\\ a\, b\\ a\: b\\ a\; b\\ \end{align*}$$

$$\begin{multline*} a + b + c + d + e + f\\ +g+h+i+j+k+l+m+n \end{multline*}$$

$$\begin{gather*} a_1 = b_1 + c_1\\ a_2 = b_2 + c_2 - d_2 + e_2 \end{gather*}$$

$$e^x = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!} = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} (1+x/n)^n$$

$$\int_{0}^{1} x dx = \left[ \frac{1}{2}x^2 \right]_{0}^{1} = \frac{1}{2}$$

$$L = \int_a^b \left( g_{\it ij} \dot u^i \dot u^j \right)^{1/2} dt$$

$$\iiint f(x,y,z)\,dx\,dy\,dz$$

$$\lim_{\substack{x\rightarrow 0\\y\rightarrow 0}} f(x,y)$$

$$\idotsint_\textrm{paths} \exp{(iS(x,\dot{x})/\hbar)}\, \mathcal{D}x$$

$$A \alpha B \beta \Gamma \gamma \Delta \delta \dots \Phi \phi X \chi \Psi \psi \Omega \omega$$

$$\Gamma^l_{ki} = \frac{1}{2} g^{lj} (\partial_k g_{ij} + \partial_i g_{jk} - \partial_j g_{ki})$$

$$\sigma_{3} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\ 0 & -1 \end{array} \right)$$

$$\begin{align*} u &= \ln x \quad & dv &= x\,dx \\ du &= \mbox{\frac{1}{x}\,dx} & v &= \mbox{\frac{1}{2} x^2} \end{align*}$$

$$\newcommand{\pd}[3]{ \frac{ \partial^{#3}{#1} }{ \partial {#2}^{#3} } } i \hbar \pd{\Psi}{t}{} = - \frac{\hbar^2}{2 m} \ \pd{\Psi}{x}{2} + V \Psi$$

$$\newcommand{\mean}[1]{{<\!\!{#1}\!\!>}} \newcommand{\braket}[2]{{<\!\!{#1|#2}\!\!>}} \newcommand{\braketop}[3]{{<\!\!{#1|\hat{#2}|#3}\!\!>}} \braket{\phi}{\psi} \equiv \int \phi^*(x) \psi(x)\,dx$$

$$\begin{array}{l | c|c|c|c |} \ &\overline{A}\,\overline{B}&A\,\overline{B}&\overline{A}\, B&A\, B\\ \hline \overline{C}&0&1&0&0\\ \hline C&1&0&1&1\\ \hline \end{array}$$

$$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} \tau &= \tau_1+\tau_2 = \sqrt{{\Delta t_1}^2-{\Delta x_1}^2}+ \sqrt{{\Delta t_2}^2-{\Delta x_2}^2} \\ &= \sqrt{(5-0)^2-(4-0)^2}+\sqrt{(10-5)^2-(0-4)^2}\\ &= 3+3 = 6 \end{split} \end{equation*}$$

- Warren

 

[chroot]

It's pretty good -- acceptable, certainly -- but the old output still looked a bit better. *sigh*

Do you guys like the slightly larger size now?

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

I don't really see any obvious difference between the old output and the new, other than size, which I think is an improvement (or is that a sign I'm starting to get old, that I need larger fonts?). I think what you included in that last post is perfectly clear; no difficulty reading it, even though I'm probably more than twice the age of our average user by now.

 

[qntty]

Well the old LaTeX has more anti-aliasing than the current. I think that the old stuff looks too blurry because of that, on the other hand the current LaTeX has a few more jagged edges.

 

[Hans de Vries]

It's pretty good -- acceptable, certainly -- but the old output still looked a bit better. *sigh*

I was looking at this link, there are loads of options to control the
postscript to image conversion, Very nice program indeed!

http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/text/#postscript

Do you guys like the slightly larger size now?

- Warren

That's fine, display resolution has increased quite a lot also in the last six years Regards, Hans

 

[Phrak]

Just for giggles, check out the LaTeX output as it was introduced almost six years ago. (Wow...)

- Warren

I opened it up and used the toolbar verticle tile to compare, side by side.

What you have is crisper than the older, and still in good proportion with good stroke widths.

It uses only about 5% more in verticle screen, and 7% in width than the older.


"Excellent! Way better than we had.

 

[robphy]

As others have mentioned...
It looks nice and crisp [on an LCD]. The size is nice. It does look GREAT! Thanks!


The older one was a little blurrier... which didn't look as good on the screen.
However, it seems older one printed out better on my laser printer.

$$abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz$$
evw and z didn't print out well for me. (Maybe it's just me.)

Would a lower gamma (say 0.4) be a compromise?
Maybe some antialiasing would help.

 

[Hans de Vries]

As far as I can see:

1) You shouldn't need the gamma trick, (it reduces the anti-aliasing quality)
2) The anti-aliasing should be left doing it's work automatically and directly to transparent
3) dpi should be about 120 or so for a typical monitor.

The dpi (dots per inch) is important because small characters with thin lines are
automatically made thicker if they become thinner as one pixel.

So you could try something like this:

convert -channel RGBA -density 120 ps_file.ps -trim +repage -bordercolor none -border 3 ps_transparent.png

-channel RGBA renders to an anti aliased transparent image
-density 120 sets the dpi to 120Regards, Hans

 

[Hans de Vries]

I used the following command:

convert -channel RGBA -density 128 -blur 0.1x0.36 ps_file.ps -trim +repage -bordercolor none -border 3 ps_transparent.png

to get the following image from this http://www.chip-architect.org/images/ps_file.ps" . There's also a small blur used now.

Regards, Hans

 

[symbolipoint]

The view here up through post #60 all look bad. Black background, and blurry to the extend of not being readable.

 

[tiny-tim]

inline LaTeX

erm …

what's happened to the inline tex? …

(for magnetic moment $\bold{\mu}$):

(for magnetic moment $mu$):

 

[Count Iblis]

The view here up through post #60 all look bad. Black background, and blurry to the extend of not being readable.

I have the same problem on one of my computers (an older one running IE6). Presumably that has to do with the fact that IE6 has some bugs displaying PNG images under some conditions.

 

[Mentz114]

I'm seeing all Tex as black squares with some broken white dots. Is this the IE problem ? Nothing has changed on this machine.

 

[Count Iblis]

I'm seeing all Tex as black squares with some broken white dots. Is this the IE problem ? Nothing has changed on this machine.

I'm pretty sure it is. They made some changes here on Physics Forums a few days ago and since then I'm having this problem on one of my computers that is running IE6. I didn't have that problem on that machine before and I don't have it now on other computers. Also, it is well known that IE6 has problems displaying PNG images that are witin certain size limits.

 

[Mentz114]

OK, thanks Count. I'll have to copy out the Tex and render it elsewhere.

[edit] everything looks fine with FireFox. I like the bigger size. Another MS conspiracy to inconvenience me .

 

[robphy]

I'm seeing all Tex as black squares with some broken white dots. Is this the IE problem ? Nothing has changed on this machine.

It's probably related to the so-called IE Transparency bug
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294714
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1645331,00.asp

 

[Phrak]

itex ..Abc $\mu \nu \gamma$ def

tex ..Abc $$\mu \nu \gamma$$ def

The inline text seems out of wack.