RE: High quality images

[Jon Harvey]

Dov,

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I've been using SnagIt 6.2 to
capture images. The hard issue I've been having is in creating captures
that can be placed on the Web. Some of these include simple line that I
need to resize, drawings that also include text. It hasn't been easy to
find a way to get good, clear graphics.

To further answer your question, I've been using the default settings in
SnagIt and importing into FM 7.2 as Objects rather than files. That in
itself may be part of my mistake. I've used your method described below
using stricty SnagIt, rather than PhotoShop, and got similar (good)
results to yours. Thanks!

Jon Harvey
Manager, Desktop Documentation
 
CambridgeSoft Corporation
100 CambridgePark Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140

-Original Message-
From: Dov Isaacs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:29 PM
To: Jon Harvey; Stuart Rogers; Clara Hall
Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: High quality images

Jon,

I just tried this on my notebook system sitting in a hotel
room on a business trip. Did screen shot Alt-PrtSc and pasted
the result into a new document in Photoshop 9 (=CS2).
Flattened the layers and saved as RGB TIFF with profile
embedded and LZW compression (in this case, the profile 
doesn't seem to make any difference, unfortunately). I then
started up FrameMaker 7.2 (updated with all patches available
on Adobe web site), created a new document, and imported the
TIFF file by reference onto a blank page. Worked like a charm.

What program did you create the TIFF file in? EXACTLY what 
options did you use to save the file? 

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Jon Harvey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:03 AM
 To: Dov Isaacs; Stuart Rogers; Clara Hall
 Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 Dov, 
 
 I tried this. FrameMake imports the tif as an empty graphic 
 frame with the image file name in it. The image can be 
 activated but only in a graphics program. And, what you see 
 in FM is the same as you get in the PDF. Unless there is 
 something I can't get FM 7.2 on Windows to display the TIF 
 with LZW compression.
 
 BTW, high quality imaging is an important subject to me since 
 my company creates drawing software. Our images HAVE to look 
 good. What am I missing here?
 
 Jon Harvey
 Manager, Desktop Documentation
  
 CambridgeSoft Corporation
 100 CambridgePark Drive
 Cambridge, MA 02140
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

High quality images

[Jon Harvey]

Dov,

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I've been using SnagIt 6.2 to
capture images. The hard issue I've been having is in creating captures
that can be placed on the Web. Some of these include simple line that I
need to resize, drawings that also include text. It hasn't been easy to
find a way to get good, clear graphics.

To further answer your question, I've been using the default settings in
SnagIt and importing into FM 7.2 as Objects rather than files. That in
itself may be part of my mistake. I've used your method described below
using stricty SnagIt, rather than PhotoShop, and got similar (good)
results to yours. Thanks!

Jon Harvey
Manager, Desktop Documentation

CambridgeSoft Corporation
100 CambridgePark Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140

-Original Message-
From: Dov Isaacs [mailto:isa...@adobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:29 PM
To: Jon Harvey; Stuart Rogers; Clara Hall
Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: High quality images

Jon,

I just tried this on my notebook system sitting in a hotel
room on a business trip. Did screen shot Alt-PrtSc and pasted
the result into a new document in Photoshop 9 (=CS2).
Flattened the layers and saved as RGB TIFF with profile
embedded and LZW compression (in this case, the profile 
doesn't seem to make any difference, unfortunately). I then
started up FrameMaker 7.2 (updated with all patches available
on Adobe web site), created a new document, and imported the
TIFF file by reference onto a blank page. Worked like a charm.

What program did you create the TIFF file in? EXACTLY what 
options did you use to save the file? 

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Harvey [mailto:JHarvey at cambridgesoft.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:03 AM
> To: Dov Isaacs; Stuart Rogers; Clara Hall
> Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> Dov, 
> 
> I tried this. FrameMake imports the tif as an empty graphic 
> frame with the image file name in it. The image can be 
> activated but only in a graphics program. And, what you see 
> in FM is the same as you get in the PDF. Unless there is 
> something I can't get FM 7.2 on Windows to display the TIF 
> with LZW compression.
> 
> BTW, high quality imaging is an important subject to me since 
> my company creates drawing software. Our images HAVE to look 
> good. What am I missing here?
> 
> Jon Harvey
> Manager, Desktop Documentation
>  
> CambridgeSoft Corporation
> 100 CambridgePark Drive
> Cambridge, MA 02140

RE: High quality images

[Steve Rickaby]

At 14:45 -0800 29/1/07, Matt Sullivan wrote:

In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP compression
saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that smaller size, the RIP time
would often increase by a factor of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the
application (with the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In
each case, the application passes the processing (decompression, scaling,
and rotating) off to the RIP.

As it happens, I hit this yesterday, with an EPS of a bw screenshot with a lot 
of white space (actually a shot of FrameMaker's structure view).

Saved from Illustrator CS2 as TIFF with LZW on, 1MB, with LZW off, 19 MB.

RIPs aside, my client's aren't going to thank me for a 19 MB file of a rather 
plain and boring screenshot.

(I didn't use PDF because clients specify TIFF for this application.)

-- 
Steve
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: High quality images

[T.W. Smith]

Hi,

CAVEAT: Dov does not like this content, and I respect his judgement.
Nonetheless, I believe there's good information here on the whole. two
points:

1) Take a look at Screen Captures 102 here:
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/magazine/technical/screencapgraphicshomepage.html
.

2) Drawing software tells me you're using vectors and want to use EPS
instead of rasters like PNG, GIF, TIFF, etc.

Cheers,

Sean


On 1/29/07, Jon Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Dov,

I tried this. FrameMake imports the tif as an empty graphic frame with
the image file name in it. The image can be activated but only in a
graphics program. And, what you see in FM is the same as you get in the
PDF. Unless there is something I can't get FM 7.2 on Windows to display
the TIF with LZW compression.

BTW, high quality imaging is an important subject to me since my company
creates drawing software. Our images HAVE to look good. What am I
missing here?

Jon Harvey
Manager, Desktop Documentation

CambridgeSoft Corporation
100 CambridgePark Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:01 AM
To: Stuart Rogers; Clara Hall
Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: High quality images



 -Original Message-
 From: Stuart Rogers
 Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:28 AM
 To: Clara Hall
 Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Re: High quality images

 Clara Hall wrote:
  Hello everyone,

  We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality
  images which includes the following steps:

  1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
  2.  Save the image as a Photoshop EPS.  Make sure Image
  Interpolation is set.

  This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2,
Adobe
  PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high

  quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the
  device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is
  viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript
or
  EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)

  3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.



  This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone

  has another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a
  comparable task.

 The procedure you describe is advocated by Dov Isaacs of
 Adobe, and his instructions also include selecting Binary
 encoding and TIFF 8-bit preview. I don't know if the current
 version of Snag-It, suggested by Art, includes those options.
  In my somewhat geriatric version of Snag-It, the only
 setting for EPS is colour-depth.

 But I'm not sure there's a great deal of benefit if you're
 starting out with screenshots, which are low-res to begin
 with. Photos and other types of graphics may benefit more
 from the treatment you describe.

 (If you're monitoring this thread, Dov, can you comment?)

 As far as scripting your current process goes, you can
 automate at least part of it by using the built-in
 macro-recording feature in Photoshop (Window  Actions) to
 open a new RGB window, paste, flatten, save as in folder... etc.

 HTH,

 --
 Stuart Rogers


FWIW,

Yes, in the past I did recommend the EPS route with the image
interpolation flag from Photoshop.

In the meantime, Acrobat and Reader, beginning with versions 6
or 7, do a much better job of displaying and enhancing low
resolution images (such as those from screen shots) on screen,
making that interpolation flag (available in the workflow
available now only when saving EPS from Photoshop) somewhat
unnecessary. I do not use this anymore. For printing, virtually
every PostScript or PDF RIP / printer that I know of will
adequately handle the images without the interpolation bit on.

As such, my current recommendation for screen shots in FrameMaker
or for that matter, almost any other page layout program, is to
capture the image and save without any resampling as a TIFF file
using the LZW compression option.

- Dov
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/jharvey%40cambridges
oft.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/techwordsmith%40gmail.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.





--
T.


STC-Connecticut Chapter
http://www.stc-ct.org

High quality images

[Steve Rickaby]

At 14:45 -0800 29/1/07, Matt Sullivan wrote:

>In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP compression
>saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that smaller size, the RIP time
>would often increase by a factor of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the
>application (with the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In
>each case, the application passes the processing (decompression, scaling,
>and rotating) off to the RIP.

As it happens, I hit this yesterday, with an EPS of a b screenshot with a lot 
of white space (actually a shot of FrameMaker's structure view).

Saved from Illustrator CS2 as TIFF with LZW on, 1MB, with LZW off, 19 MB.

RIPs aside, my client's aren't going to thank me for a 19 MB file of a rather 
plain and boring screenshot.

(I didn't use PDF because clients specify TIFF for this application.)

-- 
Steve

High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Psst. A dirty little not-so-secret.

FrameMaker does NOT support "native .AI files."
What it does support are Adobe Illustrator files
saved with the PDF-compatibility option. When you
import such files, FrameMaker's import filter ignores
the private Illustrator data in such files and treats
them as PDF files and internally converts the PDF to
EPS.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Kenneth C. Benson
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:37 PM
> To: 'Framers List'
> Subject: Re: High quality images
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matt Sullivan" 
> 
> > Along those lines, another client refuses to import native 
> .ai files 
> > and instead uses EPS because of the .5 second delay in preview. The 
> > little things count when multipled out hundreds of times!
> 
> 
> Funny, I began saving all graphics (even bitmaps) as EPS 
> years ago for just that reason. EPS moves faster because the 
> preview is really bad (or nonexistent). Of course, ten years 
> ago, it was considerably more than a half a second to pull up 
> a letter-size 600 ppi scan.
> 
> Kenneth Benson

High quality images

[T.W. Smith]

Hi,

CAVEAT: Dov does not like this content, and I respect his judgement.
Nonetheless, I believe there's good information here on the whole. two
points:

1) Take a look at Screen Captures 102 here:
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/magazine/technical/screencapgraphicshomepage.html
. 

2) Drawing software tells me you're using vectors and want to use EPS
instead of rasters like PNG, GIF, TIFF, etc.

Cheers,

Sean


On 1/29/07, Jon Harvey  wrote:
>
> Dov,
>
> I tried this. FrameMake imports the tif as an empty graphic frame with
> the image file name in it. The image can be activated but only in a
> graphics program. And, what you see in FM is the same as you get in the
> PDF. Unless there is something I can't get FM 7.2 on Windows to display
> the TIF with LZW compression.
>
> BTW, high quality imaging is an important subject to me since my company
> creates drawing software. Our images HAVE to look good. What am I
> missing here?
>
> Jon Harvey
> Manager, Desktop Documentation
>
> CambridgeSoft Corporation
> 100 CambridgePark Drive
> Cambridge, MA 02140
>
> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+jharvey=cambridgesoft.com at lists.frameusers.com
> [mailto:framers-bounces+jharvey=cambridgesoft.com at lists.frameusers.com]
> On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:01 AM
> To: Stuart Rogers; Clara Hall
> Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: High quality images
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stuart Rogers
> > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:28 AM
> > To: Clara Hall
> > Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> > Subject: Re: High quality images
>
> > Clara Hall wrote:
> > > Hello everyone,
>
> > > We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality
> > > images which includes the following steps:
>
> > > 1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
> > > 2.  Save the image as a "Photoshop EPS".  Make sure "Image
> > > Interpolation" is set.
>
> > > This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2,
> Adobe
> > > PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high
>
> > > quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the
> > > device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is
> > > viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript
> or
> > > EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)
>
> > > 3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.
>
>
>
> > > This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone
>
> > > has another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a
> > > comparable task.
>
> > The procedure you describe is advocated by Dov Isaacs of
> > Adobe, and his instructions also include selecting Binary
> > encoding and TIFF 8-bit preview. I don't know if the current
> > version of Snag-It, suggested by Art, includes those options.
> >  In my somewhat geriatric version of Snag-It, the only
> > setting for EPS is colour-depth.
>
> > But I'm not sure there's a great deal of benefit if you're
> > starting out with screenshots, which are low-res to begin
> > with. Photos and other types of graphics may benefit more
> > from the treatment you describe.
>
> > (If you're monitoring this thread, Dov, can you comment?)
>
> > As far as scripting your current process goes, you can
> > automate at least part of it by using the built-in
> > macro-recording feature in Photoshop (Window > Actions) to
> > open a new RGB window, paste, flatten, save as in folder... etc.
>
> > HTH,
>
> > --
> > Stuart Rogers
>
>
> FWIW,
>
> Yes, in the past I did recommend the EPS route with the image
> interpolation flag from Photoshop.
>
> In the meantime, Acrobat and Reader, beginning with versions 6
> or 7, do a much better job of displaying and enhancing low
> resolution images (such as those from screen shots) on screen,
> making that "interpolation flag" (available in the workflow
> available now only when saving EPS from Photoshop) somewhat
> unnecessary. I do not use this anymore. For printing, virtually
> every PostScript or PDF RIP / printer that I know of will
> adequately handle the images without the interpolation bit on.
>
> As such, my current recommendation for screen shots in FrameMaker
> or for that matter, almost any other page layout program, is to
> capture the image and save without any resampling as a TIFF file
> using the LZW compression option.
>
> - Dov
> _

RE: High quality images

[Jon Harvey]

Dov, 

I tried this. FrameMake imports the tif as an empty graphic frame with
the image file name in it. The image can be activated but only in a
graphics program. And, what you see in FM is the same as you get in the
PDF. Unless there is something I can't get FM 7.2 on Windows to display
the TIF with LZW compression.

BTW, high quality imaging is an important subject to me since my company
creates drawing software. Our images HAVE to look good. What am I
missing here?

Jon Harvey
Manager, Desktop Documentation
 
CambridgeSoft Corporation
100 CambridgePark Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:01 AM
To: Stuart Rogers; Clara Hall
Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: High quality images

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Stuart Rogers
 Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:28 AM
 To: Clara Hall
 Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Re: High quality images

 Clara Hall wrote:
  Hello everyone,

  We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality 
  images which includes the following steps:

  1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
  2.  Save the image as a Photoshop EPS.  Make sure Image
  Interpolation is set.

  This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2,
Adobe 
  PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high

  quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the 
  device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is 
  viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript
or 
  EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)

  3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.
 


  This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone

  has another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a 
  comparable task.

 The procedure you describe is advocated by Dov Isaacs of 
 Adobe, and his instructions also include selecting Binary 
 encoding and TIFF 8-bit preview. I don't know if the current 
 version of Snag-It, suggested by Art, includes those options. 
  In my somewhat geriatric version of Snag-It, the only 
 setting for EPS is colour-depth.

 But I'm not sure there's a great deal of benefit if you're 
 starting out with screenshots, which are low-res to begin 
 with. Photos and other types of graphics may benefit more 
 from the treatment you describe.

 (If you're monitoring this thread, Dov, can you comment?)

 As far as scripting your current process goes, you can 
 automate at least part of it by using the built-in 
 macro-recording feature in Photoshop (Window  Actions) to 
 open a new RGB window, paste, flatten, save as in folder... etc.

 HTH,

 --
 Stuart Rogers


FWIW,

Yes, in the past I did recommend the EPS route with the image
interpolation flag from Photoshop.

In the meantime, Acrobat and Reader, beginning with versions 6
or 7, do a much better job of displaying and enhancing low 
resolution images (such as those from screen shots) on screen,
making that interpolation flag (available in the workflow
available now only when saving EPS from Photoshop) somewhat
unnecessary. I do not use this anymore. For printing, virtually
every PostScript or PDF RIP / printer that I know of will
adequately handle the images without the interpolation bit on.

As such, my current recommendation for screen shots in FrameMaker
or for that matter, almost any other page layout program, is to
capture the image and save without any resampling as a TIFF file
using the LZW compression option.

- Dov
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/jharvey%40cambridges
oft.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: High quality images

[Combs, Richard]

Jon Harvey wrote: 
 
 I tried this. FrameMake imports the tif as an empty graphic 
 frame with the image file name in it. The image can be 
 activated but only in a graphics program. 

Activated? It sounds like you're importing it as (or creating) an
_object_ (i.e., linking with OLE) instead of importing the file. Or
(maybe even worse) _pasting_ it, and it's defaulting to OLE. Just a
guess. 

If that's what you're doing, stop it -- you'll go blind! ;-) Use File 
Import  File. 

HTH!
Richard


--
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
--
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
--




___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Matt,

Several observations:

(1) There is something drastically wrong with your
RIP if it is slowing down when faced with compressed
images.

(2) How an image is compressed in a TIFF file is
irrelevant in terms of what FrameMaker, the PostScript
driver, and if you are using a PDF workflow, what
the Distiller and Acrobat's print routines do with
the image with regards to compression. Any LZW or ZIP
compression in a screen shot (or any other image)
imported into FrameMaker is absolutely lost when
FrameMaker sends the image data to the PostScript driver!

- Dov

 -Original Message-
 From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:45 PM
 To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for 
 screen shots...
 
 In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a 
 great option for bitmap files including screen shots. 
 However, I always recommended staying away from the ZIP 
 compression option. Though a lossless format, both 
 compression and scaling tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
 Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't 
 much advantage to compressing such small files, either.
 
 In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP 
 compression saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that 
 smaller size, the RIP time would often increase by a factor 
 of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the application (with 
 the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In each 
 case, the application passes the processing (decompression, 
 scaling, and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all saving to 
 PDF  printing the PDF, then most RIP's will hardly hiccup, 
 and given the speed of most PDF generation, it's doubtful 
 you'll be troubled by a (statistically) slower conversion. 
 Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to printing.
 
 Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF 
 the compression is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress 
 in the Distilling process. If sending for commercial print, 
 then the file savings is likely outweighed by additional RIP 
 (processing) time.
 
 For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply 
 pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the 
 files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but 
 simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. 
 Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply 
 pasting SCREEN CAPTURES only?
 
 Matt Sullivan
 GRAFIX Training, Inc.
 888/882-2819
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 rs.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
 Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
 To: Sean; framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample screen 
 shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
 Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen 
 shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to 
 importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite 
 layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what 
 many print service providers will tell you, all images are 
 resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled) to 
 match the combination of the device's actual resolution and 
 the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is 
 typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in 
 Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway, doing 
 a manual upsampling prior to the RIP process may cause real 
 content in your image to be lost. For screen shots, such data 
 lossiness can yield really crufty results. And such extra 
 resampling prior to the RIP process violates the reliable 
 PDF workflow principles.
 
   - Dov 
 
 
 
 
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: High quality images

[Matt Sullivan]

Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for screen shots...

In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a great option for
bitmap files including screen shots. However, I always recommended staying
away from the ZIP compression option. Though a lossless format, both
compression and scaling tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't much advantage
to compressing such small files, either.

In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP compression
saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that smaller size, the RIP time
would often increase by a factor of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the
application (with the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In
each case, the application passes the processing (decompression, scaling,
and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all saving to PDF  printing the PDF,
then most RIP's will hardly hiccup, and given the speed of most PDF
generation, it's doubtful you'll be troubled by a (statistically) slower
conversion. Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to
printing.

Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF the compression
is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress in the Distilling process. If
sending for commercial print, then the file savings is likely outweighed by
additional RIP (processing) time.

For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply pasting from
SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the files would almost never be
modified in a bitmap editor, but simply re-captured, the image on disk is a
bit redundant. Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply
pasting SCREEN CAPTURES only?

Matt Sullivan
GRAFIX Training, Inc.
888/882-2819


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
To: Sean; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: High quality images

I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample
screen shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen
shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to
importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite
layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what
many print service providers will tell you, all images
are resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled)
to match the combination of the device's actual resolution
and the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is
typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in
Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway,
doing a manual upsampling prior to the RIP process may
cause real content in your image to be lost. For screen shots,
such data lossiness can yield really crufty results. And
such extra resampling prior to the RIP process violates the
reliable PDF workflow principles.

- Dov 




___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: High quality images

[Matt Sullivan]

(1) Actually, with multiple 100+ Mb files and poster-sized or larger output,
scaling, rotation, cropping and compression take on a whole new meaning.
When the size of the cache exceeds that of the RAM on the output engine,
it's like running Photoshop on 256Mb RAM...everything goes at the speed of
the cache disk.

(2) But Frame does send the compressed referenced file to the driver to
perform calculations there, yes?
 It's been my understanding that InDesign is the only application that
pre-processed scaling, rotation, and cropping before sending to an output
device. Is that no longer/not correct?
I've always understood that all other applications will pass the referenced
file to Distiller or the RIP, and that processing occurs there.

Also, did you have an opinion on the pasting of screen captures vs. saving
to disk?


-Original Message-
From: Dov Isaacs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:50 PM
To: Matt Sullivan; Framers List
Subject: RE: High quality images

Matt,

Several observations:

(1) There is something drastically wrong with your
RIP if it is slowing down when faced with compressed
images.

(2) How an image is compressed in a TIFF file is
irrelevant in terms of what FrameMaker, the PostScript
driver, and if you are using a PDF workflow, what
the Distiller and Acrobat's print routines do with
the image with regards to compression. Any LZW or ZIP
compression in a screen shot (or any other image)
imported into FrameMaker is absolutely lost when
FrameMaker sends the image data to the PostScript driver!

- Dov

 -Original Message-
 From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:45 PM
 To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for 
 screen shots...
 
 In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a 
 great option for bitmap files including screen shots. 
 However, I always recommended staying away from the ZIP 
 compression option. Though a lossless format, both 
 compression and scaling tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
 Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't 
 much advantage to compressing such small files, either.
 
 In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP 
 compression saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that 
 smaller size, the RIP time would often increase by a factor 
 of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the application (with 
 the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In each 
 case, the application passes the processing (decompression, 
 scaling, and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all saving to 
 PDF  printing the PDF, then most RIP's will hardly hiccup, 
 and given the speed of most PDF generation, it's doubtful 
 you'll be troubled by a (statistically) slower conversion. 
 Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to printing.
 
 Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF 
 the compression is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress 
 in the Distilling process. If sending for commercial print, 
 then the file savings is likely outweighed by additional RIP 
 (processing) time.
 
 For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply 
 pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the 
 files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but 
 simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. 
 Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply 
 pasting SCREEN CAPTURES only?
 
 Matt Sullivan
 GRAFIX Training, Inc.
 888/882-2819
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 rs.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
 Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
 To: Sean; framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample screen 
 shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
 Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen 
 shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to 
 importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite 
 layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what 
 many print service providers will tell you, all images are 
 resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled) to 
 match the combination of the device's actual resolution and 
 the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is 
 typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in 
 Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway, doing 
 a manual upsampling prior to the RIP process may cause real 
 content in your image to be lost. For screen shots, such data 
 lossiness can yield really crufty results. And such extra 
 resampling prior to the RIP process violates the reliable 
 PDF workflow principles.
 
   - Dov 
 
 
 
 
 



___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Matt,

To directly answer your questions:

(a) FrameMaker does NOT send the original compressed
referenced file to the printer driver. It decompresses
the image and sends that decompressed image to the 
driver. Thus, the original compression in the TIFF or
JPEG or whatever matters not. The drive gets a
decompressed image.

(b) InDesign does NOT (and NEVER did) any actual
scaling or rotation of placed content before sending
to either PostScript or PDF. It simply sends a 
transformation matrix that is used by the ultimate
RIP / rendering device to do the scaling, rotation,
etc. itself.

(c) Pasting of screen captures into a page layout
program is not reliable, disciplined workflow. Such
assets should be kept separate as a file.

- Dov
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:08 PM
 To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 (1) Actually, with multiple 100+ Mb files and poster-sized or 
 larger output, scaling, rotation, cropping and compression 
 take on a whole new meaning.
 When the size of the cache exceeds that of the RAM on the 
 output engine, it's like running Photoshop on 256Mb 
 RAM...everything goes at the speed of the cache disk.
 
 (2) But Frame does send the compressed referenced file to the 
 driver to perform calculations there, yes?
  It's been my understanding that InDesign is the only 
 application that pre-processed scaling, rotation, and 
 cropping before sending to an output device. Is that no 
 longer/not correct?
 I've always understood that all other applications will pass 
 the referenced file to Distiller or the RIP, and that 
 processing occurs there.
 
 Also, did you have an opinion on the pasting of screen 
 captures vs. saving to disk?
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Dov Isaacs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:50 PM
 To: Matt Sullivan; Framers List
 Subject: RE: High quality images
 
 Matt,
 
 Several observations:
 
 (1)   There is something drastically wrong with your
 RIP if it is slowing down when faced with compressed images.
 
 (2)   How an image is compressed in a TIFF file is
 irrelevant in terms of what FrameMaker, the PostScript 
 driver, and if you are using a PDF workflow, what the 
 Distiller and Acrobat's print routines do with the image with 
 regards to compression. Any LZW or ZIP compression in a 
 screen shot (or any other image) imported into FrameMaker is 
 absolutely lost when FrameMaker sends the image data to the 
 PostScript driver!
 
   - Dov
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:45 PM
  To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
  Subject: RE: High quality images
  
  Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for screen 
  shots...
  
  In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a great 
  option for bitmap files including screen shots.
  However, I always recommended staying away from the ZIP compression 
  option. Though a lossless format, both compression and scaling 
  tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
  Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't much 
  advantage to compressing such small files, either.
  
  In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP 
  compression saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that 
 smaller size, 
  the RIP time would often increase by a factor of 4x or 5x. 
 Scaling the 
  image within the application (with the exception of InDesign) would 
  also slow the RIP. In each case, the application passes the 
 processing 
  (decompression, scaling, and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all 
  saving to PDF  printing the PDF, then most RIP's will 
 hardly hiccup, 
  and given the speed of most PDF generation, it's doubtful you'll be 
  troubled by a (statistically) slower conversion.
  Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to printing.
  
  Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF the 
  compression is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress in the 
  Distilling process. If sending for commercial print, then the file 
  savings is likely outweighed by additional RIP
  (processing) time.
  
  For screen captures, my clients have the best success 
 simply pasting 
  from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the files 
 would almost 
  never be modified in a bitmap editor, but simply re-captured, the 
  image on disk is a bit redundant.
  Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply 
 pasting SCREEN 
  CAPTURES only?
  
  Matt Sullivan
  GRAFIX Training, Inc.
  888/882-2819
  
  
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  rs.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
  Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
  To: Sean; framers@lists.frameusers.com
  Subject: RE: High quality images
  
  I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample screen 
 shots at 
  any

RE: High quality images

[Combs, Richard]

Matt Sullivan wrote: 
 
 For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply 
 pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the 
 files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but 
 simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. 

Importing by reference is _far_ better than pasting, IMHO. The graphics
file on disk isn't redundant because it's the only instance that
exists. The docs contain only a link to that file, not the graphic
itself. Then, when the screen changes, I just replace the graphics file,
and the doc is automatically updated. If the same screen shot appears in
several places, I don't have to remember them all -- just replace the
one file that's referenced in each place. 

Richard


--
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
--
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
--




___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: High quality images

[Matt Sullivan]

Hadn't thought of the multiple instance angle...good point.

My clients have opted for the Cut/Paste (yes, groan all at once) because
even the fast option of saving as TIFF and importing slows down a doc with
300 or more captures. They had more difficulty managing file names than
managing files referenced in multiple locations.

Along those lines, another client refuses to import native .ai files and
instead uses EPS because of the .5 second delay in preview. The little
things count when multipled out hundreds of times! 

 

-Matt Sullivan

 

GRAFIX Training, Inc.

An Adobe Authorized Training Center

www.grafixtraining.com

888 882-2819 


-Original Message-
From: Combs, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:15 PM
To: Matt Sullivan; Framers List
Subject: RE: High quality images

Matt Sullivan wrote: 
 
 For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply 
 pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the 
 files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but 
 simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. 

Importing by reference is _far_ better than pasting, IMHO. The graphics
file on disk isn't redundant because it's the only instance that
exists. The docs contain only a link to that file, not the graphic
itself. Then, when the screen changes, I just replace the graphics file,
and the doc is automatically updated. If the same screen shot appears in
several places, I don't have to remember them all -- just replace the
one file that's referenced in each place. 

Richard


--
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
--
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
--



___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Jon,

I just tried this on my notebook system sitting in a hotel
room on a business trip. Did screen shot Alt-PrtSc and pasted
the result into a new document in Photoshop 9 (=CS2).
Flattened the layers and saved as RGB TIFF with profile
embedded and LZW compression (in this case, the profile 
doesn't seem to make any difference, unfortunately). I then
started up FrameMaker 7.2 (updated with all patches available
on Adobe web site), created a new document, and imported the
TIFF file by reference onto a blank page. Worked like a charm.

What program did you create the TIFF file in? EXACTLY what 
options did you use to save the file? 

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Harvey [mailto:JHarvey at cambridgesoft.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:03 AM
> To: Dov Isaacs; Stuart Rogers; Clara Hall
> Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> Dov, 
> 
> I tried this. FrameMake imports the tif as an empty graphic 
> frame with the image file name in it. The image can be 
> activated but only in a graphics program. And, what you see 
> in FM is the same as you get in the PDF. Unless there is 
> something I can't get FM 7.2 on Windows to display the TIF 
> with LZW compression.
> 
> BTW, high quality imaging is an important subject to me since 
> my company creates drawing software. Our images HAVE to look 
> good. What am I missing here?
> 
> Jon Harvey
> Manager, Desktop Documentation
>  
> CambridgeSoft Corporation
> 100 CambridgePark Drive
> Cambridge, MA 02140

High quality images

[Combs, Richard]

Jon Harvey wrote: 

> I tried this. FrameMake imports the tif as an empty graphic 
> frame with the image file name in it. The image can be 
> activated but only in a graphics program. 

"Activated"? It sounds like you're importing it as (or creating) an
_object_ (i.e., linking with OLE) instead of importing the file. Or
(maybe even worse) _pasting_ it, and it's defaulting to OLE. Just a
guess. 

If that's what you're doing, stop it -- you'll go blind! ;-) Use File >
Import > File. 

HTH!
Richard


--
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
--
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
--

High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Matt,

Several observations:

(1) There is something drastically wrong with your
RIP if it is slowing down when faced with compressed
images.

(2) How an image is compressed in a TIFF file is
irrelevant in terms of what FrameMaker, the PostScript
driver, and if you are using a PDF workflow, what
the Distiller and Acrobat's print routines do with
the image with regards to compression. Any LZW or ZIP
compression in a screen shot (or any other image)
imported into FrameMaker is absolutely lost when
FrameMaker sends the image data to the PostScript driver!

- Dov

> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:matt at grafixtraining.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:45 PM
> To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for 
> screen shots...
> 
> In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a 
> great option for bitmap files including screen shots. 
> However, I always recommended staying away from the ZIP 
> compression option. Though a "lossless" format, both 
> compression and scaling tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
> Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't 
> much advantage to compressing such small files, either.
> 
> In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP 
> compression saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that 
> smaller size, the RIP time would often increase by a factor 
> of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the application (with 
> the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In each 
> case, the application passes the processing (decompression, 
> scaling, and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all saving to 
> PDF & printing the PDF, then most RIP's will hardly hiccup, 
> and given the speed of most PDF generation, it's doubtful 
> you'll be troubled by a (statistically) slower conversion. 
> Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to printing.
> 
> Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF 
> the compression is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress 
> in the Distilling process. If sending for commercial print, 
> then the file savings is likely outweighed by additional RIP 
> (processing) time.
> 
> For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply 
> pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the 
> files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but 
> simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. 
> Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply 
> pasting SCREEN CAPTURES only?
> 
> Matt Sullivan
> GRAFIX Training, Inc.
> 888/882-2819
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameusers.com
> [mailto:framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameuse
> rs.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
> To: Sean; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample screen 
> shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
> Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen 
> shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to 
> importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite 
> layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what 
> many print service providers will tell you, all images are 
> resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled) to 
> match the combination of the device's actual resolution and 
> the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is 
> typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in 
> Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway, doing 
> a "manual" upsampling prior to the RIP process may cause real 
> content in your image to be lost. For screen shots, such data 
> lossiness can yield really crufty results. And such extra 
> resampling prior to the RIP process violates the "reliable 
> PDF workflow" principles.
> 
>   - Dov 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

High quality images

[Matt Sullivan]

Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for screen shots...

In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a great option for
bitmap files including screen shots. However, I always recommended staying
away from the ZIP compression option. Though a "lossless" format, both
compression and scaling tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't much advantage
to compressing such small files, either.

In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP compression
saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that smaller size, the RIP time
would often increase by a factor of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the
application (with the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In
each case, the application passes the processing (decompression, scaling,
and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all saving to PDF & printing the PDF,
then most RIP's will hardly hiccup, and given the speed of most PDF
generation, it's doubtful you'll be troubled by a (statistically) slower
conversion. Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to
printing.

Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF the compression
is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress in the Distilling process. If
sending for commercial print, then the file savings is likely outweighed by
additional RIP (processing) time.

For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply pasting from
SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the files would almost never be
modified in a bitmap editor, but simply re-captured, the image on disk is a
bit redundant. Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply
pasting SCREEN CAPTURES only?

Matt Sullivan
GRAFIX Training, Inc.
888/882-2819


-Original Message-
From: framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameusers.com] On
Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
To: Sean; framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: High quality images

I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample
screen shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen
shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to
importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite
layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what
many print service providers will tell you, all images
are resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled)
to match the combination of the device's actual resolution
and the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is
typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in
Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway,
doing a "manual" upsampling prior to the RIP process may
cause real content in your image to be lost. For screen shots,
such data lossiness can yield really crufty results. And
such extra resampling prior to the RIP process violates the
"reliable PDF workflow" principles.

- Dov 

High quality images

[Matt Sullivan]

(1) Actually, with multiple 100+ Mb files and poster-sized or larger output,
scaling, rotation, cropping and compression take on a whole new meaning.
When the size of the cache exceeds that of the RAM on the output engine,
it's like running Photoshop on 256Mb RAM...everything goes at the speed of
the cache disk.

(2) But Frame does send the compressed referenced file to the driver to
perform calculations there, yes?
 It's been my understanding that InDesign is the only application that
pre-processed scaling, rotation, and cropping before sending to an output
device. Is that no longer/not correct?
I've always understood that all other applications will pass the referenced
file to Distiller or the RIP, and that processing occurs there.

Also, did you have an opinion on the pasting of screen captures vs. saving
to disk?


-Original Message-
From: Dov Isaacs [mailto:isa...@adobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:50 PM
To: Matt Sullivan; Framers List
Subject: RE: High quality images

Matt,

Several observations:

(1) There is something drastically wrong with your
RIP if it is slowing down when faced with compressed
images.

(2) How an image is compressed in a TIFF file is
irrelevant in terms of what FrameMaker, the PostScript
driver, and if you are using a PDF workflow, what
the Distiller and Acrobat's print routines do with
the image with regards to compression. Any LZW or ZIP
compression in a screen shot (or any other image)
imported into FrameMaker is absolutely lost when
FrameMaker sends the image data to the PostScript driver!

- Dov

> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:matt at grafixtraining.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:45 PM
> To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for 
> screen shots...
> 
> In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a 
> great option for bitmap files including screen shots. 
> However, I always recommended staying away from the ZIP 
> compression option. Though a "lossless" format, both 
> compression and scaling tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
> Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't 
> much advantage to compressing such small files, either.
> 
> In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP 
> compression saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that 
> smaller size, the RIP time would often increase by a factor 
> of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the application (with 
> the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In each 
> case, the application passes the processing (decompression, 
> scaling, and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all saving to 
> PDF & printing the PDF, then most RIP's will hardly hiccup, 
> and given the speed of most PDF generation, it's doubtful 
> you'll be troubled by a (statistically) slower conversion. 
> Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to printing.
> 
> Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF 
> the compression is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress 
> in the Distilling process. If sending for commercial print, 
> then the file savings is likely outweighed by additional RIP 
> (processing) time.
> 
> For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply 
> pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the 
> files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but 
> simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. 
> Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply 
> pasting SCREEN CAPTURES only?
> 
> Matt Sullivan
> GRAFIX Training, Inc.
> 888/882-2819
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameusers.com
> [mailto:framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameuse
> rs.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
> To: Sean; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample screen 
> shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
> Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen 
> shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to 
> importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite 
> layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what 
> many print service providers will tell you, all images are 
> resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled) to 
> match the combination of the device's actual resolution and 
> the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is 
> typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in 
> Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway, doing 
> a "manual&qu

High quality images

[Matt Sullivan]

Hadn't thought of the multiple instance angle...good point.

My clients have opted for the Cut/Paste (yes, groan all at once) because
even the fast option of saving as TIFF and importing slows down a doc with
300 or more captures. They had more difficulty managing file names than
managing files referenced in multiple locations.

Along those lines, another client refuses to import native .ai files and
instead uses EPS because of the .5 second delay in preview. The little
things count when multipled out hundreds of times! 



-Matt Sullivan



GRAFIX Training, Inc.

An Adobe Authorized Training Center

www.grafixtraining.com

888 882-2819 


-Original Message-
From: Combs, Richard [mailto:richard.co...@polycom.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:15 PM
To: Matt Sullivan; Framers List
Subject: RE: High quality images

Matt Sullivan wrote: 

> For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply 
> pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the 
> files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but 
> simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. 

Importing by reference is _far_ better than pasting, IMHO. The graphics
file on disk isn't "redundant" because it's the only instance that
exists. The docs contain only a link to that file, not the graphic
itself. Then, when the screen changes, I just replace the graphics file,
and the doc is automatically updated. If the same screen shot appears in
several places, I don't have to remember them all -- just replace the
one file that's referenced in each place. 

Richard


--
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
--
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
--

High quality images

[Kenneth C. Benson]

- Original Message -
From: "Matt Sullivan" 

> Along those lines, another client refuses to import native .ai files and
> instead uses EPS because of the .5 second delay in preview. The little
> things count when multipled out hundreds of times!


Funny, I began saving all graphics (even bitmaps) as EPS years ago for just
that reason. EPS moves faster because the preview is really bad (or
nonexistent). Of course, ten years ago, it was considerably more than a half
a second to pull up a letter-size 600 ppi scan.

Kenneth Benson
Pegasus Type, Inc.
www.pegtype.com

RE: High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Stuart Rogers
 Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:28 AM
 To: Clara Hall
 Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Re: High quality images

 Clara Hall wrote:
  Hello everyone,

  We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality 
  images which includes the following steps:

  1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
  2.  Save the image as a Photoshop EPS.  Make sure Image
  Interpolation is set.

  This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2,
Adobe 
  PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high

  quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the 
  device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is 
  viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript
or 
  EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)

  3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.
 


  This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone

  has another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a 
  comparable task.

 The procedure you describe is advocated by Dov Isaacs of 
 Adobe, and his instructions also include selecting Binary 
 encoding and TIFF 8-bit preview. I don't know if the current 
 version of Snag-It, suggested by Art, includes those options. 
  In my somewhat geriatric version of Snag-It, the only 
 setting for EPS is colour-depth.

 But I'm not sure there's a great deal of benefit if you're 
 starting out with screenshots, which are low-res to begin 
 with. Photos and other types of graphics may benefit more 
 from the treatment you describe.

 (If you're monitoring this thread, Dov, can you comment?)

 As far as scripting your current process goes, you can 
 automate at least part of it by using the built-in 
 macro-recording feature in Photoshop (Window  Actions) to 
 open a new RGB window, paste, flatten, save as in folder... etc.

 HTH,

 --
 Stuart Rogers


FWIW,

Yes, in the past I did recommend the EPS route with the image
interpolation flag from Photoshop.

In the meantime, Acrobat and Reader, beginning with versions 6
or 7, do a much better job of displaying and enhancing low 
resolution images (such as those from screen shots) on screen,
making that interpolation flag (available in the workflow
available now only when saving EPS from Photoshop) somewhat
unnecessary. I do not use this anymore. For printing, virtually
every PostScript or PDF RIP / printer that I know of will
adequately handle the images without the interpolation bit on.

As such, my current recommendation for screen shots in FrameMaker
or for that matter, almost any other page layout program, is to
capture the image and save without any resampling as a TIFF file
using the LZW compression option.

- Dov
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample
screen shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen
shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to
importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite
layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what
many print service providers will tell you, all images
are resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled)
to match the combination of the device's actual resolution
and the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is
typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in
Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway,
doing a manual upsampling prior to the RIP process may
cause real content in your image to be lost. For screen shots,
such data lossiness can yield really crufty results. And
such extra resampling prior to the RIP process violates the
reliable PDF workflow principles.

- Dov 


 -Original Message-
 From: Sean
 Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:43 PM
 To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
 Subject: Re: High quality images
 
 Checkout Screen Captures 102 here:
 

http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/magazine/technical/screencapgraphicsho
mepage.html
 
 Cheers.
 
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

re: High quality images

[Shlomo Perets]

When the PDF is displayed on-screen, zooming in/out will effectively 
downsample/upsample the screen capture, causing loss of quality.


For an optimal display of screen captures (and when printing the PDF is not 
the primary intended use), a separate PDF (image viewer) may be used, 
with a controlled default zoom level that is related to the dpi value used 
in FrameMaker. This default zoom level is restored, if changed, when the 
reader switches pages.


For an example, see http://www.microtype.com/showcase/text.pdf
The linked file -- http://www.microtype.com/showcase/screens.pdf -- takes 
into account the different display resolution of Acrobat/Reader 5 (and 
earlier, 72 dpi) vs. Acrobat/Reader 6 (and later, 96 dpi by default).
If you open the screens.pdf file in Acrobat/Reader 6.0 or higher, it opens 
at 75% zoom. Display quality is the same as the original (assuming that 
Acrobat's default display resolution of 96 is in effect). When you change 
the zoom to 74%, 73%, or 76%, loss of quality is immediately visible 
(missing pixels or blurry areas).


Magnification settings such as Fit Page or Fit Width yield unpredictable 
zoom levels, and therefore unpredictable display quality of screen captures.


[ Another screen-optimized approach is demonstrated at 
http://www.microtype.com/showcase/MultimediaAsst/Jpeg_linked.pdf ]



Shlomo Perets

MicroType, http://www.microtype.com * ToolbarPlus Express for FrameMaker
FrameMaker/Acrobat training  consulting * FrameMaker-to-Acrobat 
TimeSavers/Assistants


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

> -Original Message-
> From: Stuart Rogers
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:28 AM
> To: Clara Hall
> Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: High quality images

> Clara Hall wrote:
> > Hello everyone,

> > We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality 
> > images which includes the following steps:

> > 1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
> > 2.  Save the image as a "Photoshop EPS".  Make sure "Image
> > Interpolation" is set.

> > This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2,
Adobe 
> > PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high

> > quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the 
> > device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is 
> > viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript
or 
> > EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)

> > 3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.



> > This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone

> > has another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a 
> > comparable task.

> The procedure you describe is advocated by Dov Isaacs of 
> Adobe, and his instructions also include selecting Binary 
> encoding and TIFF 8-bit preview. I don't know if the current 
> version of Snag-It, suggested by Art, includes those options. 
>  In my somewhat geriatric version of Snag-It, the only 
> setting for EPS is colour-depth.

> But I'm not sure there's a great deal of benefit if you're 
> starting out with screenshots, which are low-res to begin 
> with. Photos and other types of graphics may benefit more 
> from the treatment you describe.

> (If you're monitoring this thread, Dov, can you comment?)

> As far as scripting your current process goes, you can 
> automate at least part of it by using the built-in 
> macro-recording feature in Photoshop (Window > Actions) to 
> open a new RGB window, paste, flatten, save as in folder... etc.

> HTH,

> --
> Stuart Rogers


FWIW,

Yes, in the past I did recommend the EPS route with the image
interpolation flag from Photoshop.

In the meantime, Acrobat and Reader, beginning with versions 6
or 7, do a much better job of displaying and enhancing low 
resolution images (such as those from screen shots) on screen,
making that "interpolation flag" (available in the workflow
available now only when saving EPS from Photoshop) somewhat
unnecessary. I do not use this anymore. For printing, virtually
every PostScript or PDF RIP / printer that I know of will
adequately handle the images without the interpolation bit on.

As such, my current recommendation for screen shots in FrameMaker
or for that matter, almost any other page layout program, is to
capture the image and save without any resampling as a TIFF file
using the LZW compression option.

- Dov

High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample
screen shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen
shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to
importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite
layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what
many print service providers will tell you, all images
are resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled)
to match the combination of the device's actual resolution
and the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is
typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in
Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway,
doing a "manual" upsampling prior to the RIP process may
cause real content in your image to be lost. For screen shots,
such data lossiness can yield really crufty results. And
such extra resampling prior to the RIP process violates the
"reliable PDF workflow" principles.

- Dov 


> -Original Message-
> From: Sean
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:43 PM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: High quality images
> 
> Checkout Screen Captures 102 here:
> 
>
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/magazine/technical/screencapgraphicsho
mepage.html
> 
> Cheers.
> 

High quality images

[Shlomo Perets]

When the PDF is displayed on-screen, zooming in/out will effectively 
downsample/upsample the screen capture, causing loss of quality.

For an optimal display of screen captures (and when printing the PDF is not 
the primary intended use), a separate PDF ("image viewer") may be used, 
with a controlled default zoom level that is related to the dpi value used 
in FrameMaker. This default zoom level is restored, if changed, when the 
reader switches pages.

For an example, see http://www.microtype.com/showcase/text.pdf
The linked file -- http://www.microtype.com/showcase/screens.pdf -- takes 
into account the different display resolution of Acrobat/Reader 5 (and 
earlier, 72 dpi) vs. Acrobat/Reader 6 (and later, 96 dpi by default).
If you open the screens.pdf file in Acrobat/Reader 6.0 or higher, it opens 
at 75% zoom. Display quality is the same as the original (assuming that 
Acrobat's default display resolution of 96 is in effect). When you change 
the zoom to 74%, 73%, or 76%, loss of quality is immediately visible 
(missing pixels or blurry areas).

Magnification settings such as Fit Page or Fit Width yield unpredictable 
zoom levels, and therefore unpredictable display quality of screen captures.

[ Another screen-optimized approach is demonstrated at 
http://www.microtype.com/showcase/MultimediaAsst/Jpeg_linked.pdf ]


Shlomo Perets

MicroType, http://www.microtype.com * ToolbarPlus Express for FrameMaker
FrameMaker/Acrobat training & consulting * FrameMaker-to-Acrobat 
TimeSavers/Assistants

High quality images

[Clara Hall]

Hello everyone,

We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality images
which includes the following steps:

1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
2.  Save the image as a Photoshop EPS.  Make sure Image
Interpolation is set.

This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2, Adobe
PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high 

quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the
device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is
viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript or
EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)

3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.

 

This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone has
another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a comparable
task. 

 

Thanks in advance for your feedback.  It is very much appreciated.

 

Clara Hall


This e-mail message from Cross Match Technologies, Inc. is intended only for 
the individual or entity to which it is addressed. 
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt 
from disclosure under applicable law. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. 
If you received this e-mail by accident, please notify the sender immediately 
and destroy this e-mail and all copies of it.

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: High quality images

[Art Campbell]

I use SnagIt, a dedicated screen capture program. Although I save to
.png files, direct saves to EPS and .PDF are supported; I'd pick .PDF
before I'd use EPS

In either case though, SnagIt saving directly to a file is a cheaper,
quicker method that doesn't require manual work in Photoshop. Or
Photoshop at all, for that matter.

SnagIt also includes a FM menu that makes taking the snap and
integrating... a snap.

Cheers,
Art

On 1/26/07, Clara Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hello everyone,

We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality images
which includes the following steps:

1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
2.  Save the image as a Photoshop EPS.  Make sure Image
Interpolation is set.

This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2, Adobe
PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high

quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the
device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is
viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript or
EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)

3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.




--
Art Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
  and a redheaded girl. -- Richard Thompson
No disclaimers apply.
DoD 358
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: High quality images

[Bill Swallow]

For screen shots, you're never going to get a higher quality output
than what you capture it at. Your highest resolution will be at which
you capure it; they will always have a fixed pixel dimension. You
should not try to alter the number of pixels in the image, as that
will add distortion. Increasing or decreasing the dpi really should
be set within FM itself, as then you will get lossless scaling of the
image. Many imaging applications misrepresent the dpi and interpolate
the data, resulting in distortion.

--
Bill Swallow
HATT List Owner
WWP-Users List Owner
Senior Member STC, TechValley Chapter
STC Single-Sourcing SIG Manager
http://techcommdood.blogspot.com
avid homebrewer and proud beer snob
I see your OOO message and raise you a clue.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: High quality images

[Stuart Rogers]

Clara Hall wrote:

Hello everyone,

We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality images
which includes the following steps:

1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
2.  Save the image as a Photoshop EPS.  Make sure Image
Interpolation is set.

This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2, Adobe
PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high 


quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the
device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is
viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript or
EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)

3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.

 


This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone has
another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a comparable
task. 


The procedure you describe is advocated by Dov Isaacs of Adobe, and his 
instructions also include selecting Binary encoding and TIFF 8-bit 
preview. I don't know if the current version of Snag-It, suggested by 
Art, includes those options.  In my somewhat geriatric version of 
Snag-It, the only setting for EPS is colour-depth.


But I'm not sure there's a great deal of benefit if you're starting out 
with screenshots, which are low-res to begin with. Photos and other 
types of graphics may benefit more from the treatment you describe.


(If you're monitoring this thread, Dov, can you comment?)

As far as scripting your current process goes, you can automate at least 
part of it by using the built-in macro-recording feature in Photoshop 
(Window  Actions) to open a new RGB window, paste, flatten, save as in 
folder... etc.


HTH,

--
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325

srogers phoenix-geophysics com

Developers explain How the Product Works.
Technical writers explain How to Work the Product.


Get Firefox!
http://tinyurl.com/8q9c5
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: High quality images

[Sean]

Checkout Screen Captures 102 here:

http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/magazine/technical/screencapgraphicshomepage.html

Cheers.

- Original Message 
From: Clara Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:32:17 AM
Subject: High quality images

Hello everyone,

We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality images
which includes the following steps:

1.Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
2.Save the image as a Photoshop EPS.  Make sure Image
Interpolation is set.

snip cool stuff that is likely unnecessary



___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

High quality images

[Clara Hall]

Hello everyone,

We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality images
which includes the following steps:

1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
2.  Save the image as a "Photoshop EPS".  Make sure "Image
Interpolation" is set.

This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2, Adobe
PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high 

quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the
device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is
viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript or
EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)

3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.



This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone has
another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a comparable
task. 



Thanks in advance for your feedback.  It is very much appreciated.



Clara Hall


This e-mail message from Cross Match Technologies, Inc. is intended only for 
the individual or entity to which it is addressed. 
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt 
from disclosure under applicable law. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. 
If you received this e-mail by accident, please notify the sender immediately 
and destroy this e-mail and all copies of it.

High quality images

[Art Campbell]

I use SnagIt, a dedicated screen capture program. Although I save to
.png files, direct saves to EPS and .PDF are supported; I'd pick .PDF
before I'd use EPS

In either case though, SnagIt saving directly to a file is a cheaper,
quicker method that doesn't require manual work in Photoshop. Or
Photoshop at all, for that matter.

SnagIt also includes a FM menu that makes taking the snap and
integrating... a snap.

Cheers,
Art

On 1/26/07, Clara Hall  wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality images
> which includes the following steps:
>
> 1.  Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
> 2.  Save the image as a "Photoshop EPS".  Make sure "Image
> Interpolation" is set.
>
> This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2, Adobe
> PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high
>
> quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the
> device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is
> viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript or
> EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)
>
> 3.  Import the resultant EPS file into FM.
>


-- 
Art Campbell art.campbell at 
gmail.com
  "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
   and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson
 No disclaimers apply.
 DoD 358

High quality images

[Bill Swallow]

For screen shots, you're never going to get a higher quality output
than what you capture it at. Your highest resolution will be at which
you capure it; they will always have a fixed pixel dimension. You
should not try to alter the number of pixels in the image, as that
will add distortion. Increasing or decreasing the "dpi" really should
be set within FM itself, as then you will get lossless scaling of the
image. Many imaging applications misrepresent the dpi and interpolate
the data, resulting in distortion.

-- 
Bill Swallow
HATT List Owner
WWP-Users List Owner
Senior Member STC, TechValley Chapter
STC Single-Sourcing SIG Manager
http://techcommdood.blogspot.com
avid homebrewer and proud beer snob
"I see your OOO message and raise you a clue."

High quality images

[Stuart Rogers]

Clara Hall wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality images
> which includes the following steps:
> 
> 1.Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
> 2.Save the image as a "Photoshop EPS".  Make sure "Image
> Interpolation" is set.
> 
> This sets a image dictionary key that Adobe PostScript Level 2, Adobe
> PostScript 3, Acrobat, and Acrobat Reader use to do very high 
> 
> quality image interpolation and/or downsampling appropriate to the
> device's actual resolution and technology at the time the image is
> viewed or printed. (Distiller passes this key along from PostScript or
> EPS in a PostScript stream into the equivalent PDF image key!)
> 
> 3.Import the resultant EPS file into FM.
> 
>  
> 
> This procedure is a bit time consuming and I was wondering if anyone has
> another way, or knows of a script which might be able to do a comparable
> task. 

The procedure you describe is advocated by Dov Isaacs of Adobe, and his 
instructions also include selecting Binary encoding and TIFF 8-bit 
preview. I don't know if the current version of Snag-It, suggested by 
Art, includes those options.  In my somewhat geriatric version of 
Snag-It, the only setting for EPS is colour-depth.

But I'm not sure there's a great deal of benefit if you're starting out 
with screenshots, which are low-res to begin with. Photos and other 
types of graphics may benefit more from the treatment you describe.

(If you're monitoring this thread, Dov, can you comment?)

As far as scripting your current process goes, you can automate at least 
part of it by using the built-in macro-recording feature in Photoshop 
(Window > Actions) to open a new RGB window, paste, flatten, save as in 
folder... etc.

HTH,

-- 
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325

srogers phoenix-geophysics com

"Developers explain How the Product Works.
Technical writers explain How to Work the Product."


Get Firefox!
http://tinyurl.com/8q9c5

High quality images

[Sean]

Checkout Screen Captures 102 here:

http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/magazine/technical/screencapgraphicshomepage.html

Cheers.

- Original Message 
From: Clara Hall <clara.h...@crossmatch.com>
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:32:17 AM
Subject: High quality images

Hello everyone,

We have recently adopted a procedure to yield the highest quality images
which includes the following steps:

1.Alt-PrintScrn the image into Photoshop
2.Save the image as a "Photoshop EPS".  Make sure "Image
Interpolation" is set.