[Bf-docboard] chapter_mesh_modelling

Tue, 07 Jan 2003 09:11:05 -0600

--------------030102080907050309020103
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stefano Selleri wrote:

>>Well, I'm not 100% sure about this, but my experience with publishers so
>>far is that they will nearly always assign someone to edit the text
>>before it's published. (Unless we're already delivering 100% commercial
>>grade content, of course :)
>>
>Yeah! I managed only once to publish a book without having the editor
>re-edit it,
>but that was Black and White only, and they were very happy of having
>camera-ready
>stuff, cut down THEIR coststs a lot...
>
>Probably we should stick to what's better for US now, and prepare a nice
>'conversion' script
>to convert all images to CYMK EPSes automatically, at the desired
>resolution.
>
>I think GIMP + Script-Fu can do this...
>
If that's the way you want to do it. Keep in mind that upsampling Web 
images for printing will always look like crap compared to an image that 
is the correct size to begin with. That's just the opposite of how it 
should be done for a print image. But it is the easiest way to do it for 
the near future.

If you're not convinced, make a JPG render that is 216x144, and a 
900x600 PNG. Then print both out so that they each measure 2"x3" printed 
at 300 dpi and compare the two. Unless you have a cheap inkjet, you will 
see a difference. If you don't mind the way the lo-res images look when 
printed, I'll shut up.

The reason most print shops have someone editing material before it 
prints is that most people who do things that need to be printed don't 
have enough experience with printing to know what to tweak. I used to 
work for a printer and people would bring in Word documents that they 
wanted offset printed, filled with JPGs. Or none of the images were done 
right, or someone didn't include the correct PostScript fonts, or didn't 
know how to use a spelling checker.

I just don't understand how someone with experience offering to design 
and set up standards that will allow this documentation to look the best 
for the Web and print NOT be what's better for us? Such a big discussion 
for something that will not change how volunteer authors do anything 
differently except make their images one specific size, and could make 
the project better.

I'm not going to push it any more. You can pay a print shop to do this 
at some later date.

Alex

--------------030102080907050309020103
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
Stefano Selleri wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:00f101c2b621$cadca8f0$080ea8c0@agave">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Well, I'm not 100% sure about this, but my experience with publishers so<br>far is that they will nearly always assign someone to edit the text<br>before it's published. (Unless we're already delivering 100% commercial<br>grade content, of course :)<br><br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!---->Yeah! I managed only once to publish a book without having the editor<br>re-edit it,<br>but that was Black and White only, and they were very happy of having<br>camera-ready<br>stuff, cut down THEIR coststs a lot...<br><br>Probably we should stick to what's better for US now, and prepare a nice<br>'conversion' script<br>to convert all images to CYMK EPSes automatically, at the desired<br>resolution.<br><br>I think GIMP + Script-Fu can do this...<br><br></pre>
    </blockquote>
If that's the way you want to do it. Keep in mind that upsampling Web images
for printing will always look like crap compared to an image that is the
correct size to begin with. That's just the opposite of how it should be
done for a print image. But it is the easiest way to do it for the near future.<br>
    <br>
If you're not convinced, make a JPG render that is 216x144, and a 900x600
PNG. Then print both out so that they each measure 2"x3" printed at 300 dpi
and compare the two. Unless you have a cheap inkjet, you will see a difference.
If you don't mind the way the lo-res images look when printed, I'll shut
up.<br>
    <br>
The reason most print shops have someone editing material before it prints
is that most people who do things that need to be printed don't have enough
experience with printing to know what to tweak. I used to work for a printer
and people would bring in Word documents that they wanted offset printed,
filled with JPGs. Or none of the images were done right, or someone didn't
include the correct PostScript fonts, or didn't know how to use a spelling
checker.<br>
    <br>
I just don't understand how someone with experience offering to design and
set up standards that will allow this documentation to look the best for
the Web and print NOT be what's better for us? Such a big discussion for
something that will not change how volunteer authors do anything differently
except make their images one specific size, and could make the project better.<br>
    <br>
I'm not going to push it any more. You can pay a print shop to do this at
some later date.<br>
    <br>
Alex<br>
    <br>
    </body>
    </html>

--------------030102080907050309020103--