11-20-2008, 01:41 PM
Tanks for the hint. Does it apply to the other 11 volumes? Difference is, volumes from 1999 onwards are not scanned, but straight from camera-ready copies.
Older volumes have been professionally scanned, and proofs seemed OK.
In fact, I've just printed part of volume 17 (1986) that you mention at 100% size (not enlarging to cover all page) and it reads perfectly OK, although it is evident it has been scanned from a paper volume.
Resolution is OK (balance between file size and quality), problems arise from the quailty of the printed copy, which is not perfect on older volumes. But the result is perfectly readable both on screen or printed with a normal quailty laser printer at 100%. And the last 10 volumes (over 3000 pages arejust perfect, I trust?
BTW, the title is 'Las armas de los Conquistadores. Las armas de los Aztecas' Or are you referring to another article not in 1986 volume?
Comparison with JSTOR is at least biased. Some old scans from JSTOR are in much, much worse state.
And frankly, even as I accept suggestions and criticism, the tone of your messsage borders the despective. A pity.
Older volumes have been professionally scanned, and proofs seemed OK.
In fact, I've just printed part of volume 17 (1986) that you mention at 100% size (not enlarging to cover all page) and it reads perfectly OK, although it is evident it has been scanned from a paper volume.
Resolution is OK (balance between file size and quality), problems arise from the quailty of the printed copy, which is not perfect on older volumes. But the result is perfectly readable both on screen or printed with a normal quailty laser printer at 100%. And the last 10 volumes (over 3000 pages arejust perfect, I trust?
BTW, the title is 'Las armas de los Conquistadores. Las armas de los Aztecas' Or are you referring to another article not in 1986 volume?
Comparison with JSTOR is at least biased. Some old scans from JSTOR are in much, much worse state.
And frankly, even as I accept suggestions and criticism, the tone of your messsage borders the despective. A pity.
