Front Page
Editorial
Opinion
Reader Mail
News
Features
Reviews
Charts
About AR
Getting AR
Copyright 1997
FS Publications
Reader Mail

From: Johan Bjornson (johan.bjornson@rocketmail.com)

I don't know if I'm allowed to make a 'puff' for my
Amiga bitmapped typeface "Flodis"...  Anyway.  My
starting-point is the XEN 9 pts, fixed-width font from
the Magic Workbench package.  Since kick-off I've
tidied up quite a little bit and used quite a large
amount of time ameliorating the font.


By way of example, it's furnished with 
o serifs
o medieval digits
o sigma, omega and pro mil signs
o 66 and 99 styles of quotation marks 
o lots of ligatures e.g. fi, fl, ff, ffi, ffl, oe
o integral italic 'f'
o s with 'inverted circumflex'
o Polish 'overstroken' l 
o silence mark (three consecutive dots)

Unlike the bulk of bitmapped fonts, "Flodis" complies
with the 'Ép height': the diacritics don't encroach on
the orginal upper-case height.

You'll find the "Flodis" Web space at:
http://expage.com/page/flodisxen/


- I guess here's your answer--yes, you're allowed. 
  -Jason


From: Eike M. Lang (elang@neuss.netsurf.de) Hi Jason, First of all: ArtEffect2.0 absolutely and positively runs on Picasso96 and has done so for quite some time (the same applies to Version1.0). You might want to clarify this in the next issue of AR. As for the loading capabilities you forgot to mention that AE2.0 supports Datatypes for image-loading which makes the range of supported load-formats actually quite extensive. Secondly I do not agree with your view that the only Image-saving formats of interest are JPEG and IFF. Most notably TIFF is still used widely in the professional world. The additional image formats provided by SView are more esoteric and will probably not be used by anybody. Another format that deserves better than "of little interest" is PNG, which is recommended for Web-use by the W3C and slowly gaining acceptance. As a closing word I have to comment on the new "real HTML"-AR: I have not yet seen it but I don't like the idea of HTML-pages being "BrowserXZY-optimized" - this is a Microsoft-ish attitude IMO. Proper HTML will look good with any proper browser - specially optimized HTML contradicts the actual idea behind HTML. - Correction made, although I was basing my erroneous P96 compatibility information on a report from CU Amiga's Mat Bettinson, who informed me of the problem he was having after I completed my review for that magazine. As for the HTML being "BrowserXYZ-optimized", it was a poor choice of words on my part. The real meaning was that when the pages were designed they were primarily TESTED using one particular browser (IBrowse) so we were certain that the magazine would look good in that browser. Since 5.08 Katie has made a number of changes to the HTML to better suit the HTML to AWeb and Voyager. (AWeb's table handling has been better catered to, and Voyager users shouldn't have any more invisible text.) -Jason
From: Emannuel Henn (deckard@hs-hom.handshake.de) Hi,Jason ! Thanks for the newest Areport, which AGAIN was full of important news and informations. I was a bit disappointed by the "ART EFFECT2"-review, though, because You only mentioned Photoshop, Art Effect and ImageFX. I don`t want to turn down ImageFX, but as You`ve tested Art Effect, which has a real nice GUI, and compared it to Photoshop, also GUI, I wonder why You didn`t mention Photogenics2, too !? Photogenics2 is sure a real competitor on the market of Amiga-image-processors, it uses layers, offers great filters (and many of them!) and is really a joy to use. - I'm still a big fan of Photogenics2, but with Almathera out of business and no publisher of the software, I didn't feel it was responsible or fair to the currently supported products to feature it as prominently. -Jason
From: Martin Skowronski (martman@netrox.net) Jason, I read your review of ArtEffect in Amiga Report with much interest. I would like to commend you on a very nice job. I would also like to offer you a slightly different perspective of ArtEffect and how it is really much more than simply an image manipulation package. I create all of the graphics that my company uses in the development of its' business seminars. Before ArtEffect was released I did all of my 24 bit painting with a program called Painter by Fractal Design. I was able to do this courtesy of my Emplant's Mac emulation. Fractal's Painter is arguably the *best* 24 bit paint package on any platform. It has powerful natural media tools (chalk looks and acts like real chalk, water color brushes *feel* very realistic etc), yet for all of it's sophistication Painter is extremely easy to use. Prior to the introduction of Art Effect, there was little available for the Amiga Artist as far as purely software based, natural media, 24 bit paint programs. Opal Paint was great in it's time, but it required the Opalvision card and was limited to NTSC screens. Alpha Paint is also nice, but, requires the presence of the Video Toaster. That leaves TVPaint and XiPaint, both of which do not offer true natural media tools. IMHO, the Amiga is in dire need of a Fractal Painter type program. Art Effect is definitely a step in the right direction. It offers many of the best features of Painter, and is improving all the time. When one considers the natural media paint tools of Art Effect, along with it's image manipulation capabilites, one begins to better appreciate just how valuable Art Effect is to anyone interested in creating cutting edge 24 bit images with their Amiga. IMHO, ArtEffect is a must have program for any Amigaphile who wants to create serious true color paintings. In that respect it is a bargain. If Norman Rockwell used an Amiga to do his work, he would be using Art Effect :-) Martin Skowronski ProActive Images www.proactive.net