[Bf-docboard] chapter_mesh_modelling

Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:32:06 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C2B66A.50F1FCE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

  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.

You are right

  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.

No need to do this, I know what will happen. Only if
you upsample with an integer scale factor and
without any blurring you'll get something decent.

  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.

:)=20

That's why I'm for EPS vector image when possible... those you can scale =
when
you want. For the bitmap images you are right.=20

The all of us here have been involved in publishing something, =
professionally,
and I have never used grafics which were not vectorial except in very
rare occasions. So, if you have a clear idea of which resolutions are =
best in a printing
process, you are most welcome.

Ceers

Stefano

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C2B66A.50F1FCE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV>If that's the way you want to do it. Keep in mind that upsampling =
Web=20
  images for printing will always look like crap compared to an image =
that is=20
  the correct size to begin with. That's just the opposite of how it =
should be=20
  done for a print image. But it is the easiest way to do it for the =
near=20
  future.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You are right</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV><BR>If you're not convinced, make a JPG render that is 216x144, =
and a=20
  900x600 PNG. Then print both out so that they each measure 2"x3" =
printed at=20
  300 dpi and compare the two. Unless you have a cheap inkjet, you will =
see a=20
  difference. If you don't mind the way the lo-res images look when =
printed,=20
  I'll shut up.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>No need to do this, I know what will =
happen. Only=20
if</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>you upsample with an integer scale =
factor=20
and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>without any blurring you'll get =
something=20
decent.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV><BR>The reason most print shops have someone editing material =
before it=20
  prints is that most people who do things that need to be printed don't =
have=20
  enough experience with printing to know what to tweak. I used to work =
for a=20
  printer and people would bring in Word documents that they wanted =
offset=20
  printed, filled with JPGs. Or none of the images were done right, or =
someone=20
  didn't include the correct PostScript fonts, or didn't know how to use =
a=20
  spelling checker.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>:) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That's why I'm for EPS vector image =
when=20
possible... those you can scale when</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>you want. For the bitmap images you are =
right.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The all of us here have been involved =
in publishing=20
something, professionally,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>and I have never used grafics which =
were not=20
vectorial except in very</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>rare occasions. So, if you have a clear =
idea of=20
which resolutions are best in a printing</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>process, you are most =
welcome.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ceers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Stefano</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C2B66A.50F1FCE0--