Hello,
I just saw both examples on Charles' MOTM last Saturday and would concur
with his assessment that the .2mm is easier to read.
My .02
Scott
------------------------------------------------
Charles Stella wrote:
>
> Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I am referring to the text
> height. All text sizes for that matter. I have always used
> DIN 1451 for text except for some logos where I use a script
> font which looks awesome. When I say clearer it is more
> aesthetic than functional. The .4mm looks more "stamped" for
> lack of a better word. Text appears to run into the next
> letter more. The appearance is coarser and not as refined.
> The .2mm is detailed and just looks better to my eye. It
> does have less of that engraved look though. I still use
> .4mm for tick marks although lately I have been alternating
> between the two per 15 degree tick. Charles.
>
> Welcome Charles,
> > started with the.4mm because that is what Tony's files
> had. Then
> > I started experimenting with the .2mm tool. It is so much
> clearer
> > and better looking especially for text in the 2.5 to 4mm
> range.
> > Anybody else notice this? Charles.
> >
> I never experimented much with the text, so this is
> interesting. By "text
> in the 2.5 to 4mm range" are you referring to the Text
> height in the Text
> engraving Properties box? Have you looked at fonts other
> than DIN 1451, 1
> stroke? Is it "clearer" under varying lighting conditions?
> Jeff
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> motmpanels-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> [Image] [Image]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> motmpanels-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.