2

I've created my manuscript with the following document class and options:

\documentclass [fontsize=12pt,paper=a4,headsepline,plainheadsepline,headinclude,twoside,open=right,DIV=14,BCOR=10mm] {scrbook}

Floating descriptions and text within figures is set as 11pt and footnotes as 10pt.

For printing I would like to use the format 170 x 240 mm as paper size and thus need to downsize my document resulting in ~80% scaling.

How can I achieve this? Furthermore, is the result typographically still good regarding page margins and line spacing?

Schweinebacke
  • 26,336
user2653422
  • 2,333
  • Do you want to scale everything in the same way? Keep the ratio between margins and paper dimensions? – sheß May 19 '16 at 22:51
  • @sheß I think that way it would be easier. However, if the final result looks better by changing the ratio I'm also interested in a solution to do that. – user2653422 May 20 '16 at 04:17
  • You can set the papersize to anything you want using the KOMA package typearea. You might have to amend the binding correction, though. – Johannes_B May 20 '16 at 06:13
  • You can replace paper=a4 with paper=170mm:240mm. If your images are scaled relative to the textwidth and amend the font size as needed, you won't have any problems. – Johannes_B May 20 '16 at 06:24
  • Alternatively, you might be looking for paper=b5? – Johannes_B May 20 '16 at 06:58
  • 1
    @Johannes_B Thank you for your help. As the work is also published in A4 online I must ensure that there are no differences in page or line breaks. Thus recompiling it with paper=170mm:240mm will not work I think. I tried the solution mentioned here with \documentclass[paper=170mm:240mm]{scrbook} instead of \documentclass[a4paper]{article}. However, I'm not sure if this is the correct way to go. – user2653422 May 20 '16 at 07:22
  • Yeah, you can do that. Will be pretty ugly though. You should have thought about the two different versions in the beginning. – Johannes_B May 20 '16 at 07:35
  • @Johannes_B For the A4 online publication I had no choice. Could you tell me please what will be wrong in the scaled output? I made a test print and it seems to be ok and everything is readable. But maybe I overlooked sth. – user2653422 May 20 '16 at 07:41
  • Squeezing stuff together, instead of freely typesetting it. Not very pleasing, but ok. – Johannes_B May 20 '16 at 07:43
  • @Johannes_B Looking closer at the output I see what you mean. The stroke width of the Latin modern especially for already thin lines get to thin to be nice. Thanks for your help. – user2653422 May 20 '16 at 08:03
  • 1
    Scale down \huge to be 12 pt big, and scale up scriptsize to the same level. You will see, that both fonts are quite different. – Johannes_B May 20 '16 at 08:07

1 Answers1

2

Scaling without changing of page breaks and line breaks could be done by the PDF printing driver. But in this case also line thickness will be scaled. Also smaller fonts often need more line skip than you get with proportional scaling. So proportional scaling is not the best typographic solution.

Changing the paper size and using another font size often is the better solution. In this case you even could use bitmap images in the same size. Even using parts of the margin for images and tables could be used for the smaller page size to improve their quality. But this solution would change line breaks and page breaks.

A third solution could be to print the paper=170mm:240mm result to A4 paper without scaling but with larger margins only. For correctors versions of a paper with larger right margin is often wanted. So this could indeed be a solution.

Nevertheless, having two different versions with two different page sizes but same line and page break will always be a compromise. The bigger the difference in page size of the versions the uglier the resulting compromise.

Schweinebacke
  • 26,336