[Bf-docboard] chapter_mesh_modelling
Alex Heizer
bf-docboard@blender.org
Tue, 07 Jan 2003 11:04:30 -0600
--------------090100040001030502030602
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stefano Selleri wrote:
> 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.
>
But you can get something better by making it big first, then
downsampling. That's my only point. :)
> 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.
>
> :)
>
>
>
> 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.
>
For print, you need EPSes all the time, not just for vector images. If
we do not sent the printer an EPS of all of our images, they will charge
$60/hr (in the US at least) to convert them once they get them, even if
they don't let you know they had to do the conversion. This is how print
works, unless you find a printer that does things differently than
everyone else. Print shops scan images in RGB or LAB color, saved as
TIFFs, then convert them to CMYK and save them as EPSes.
> The all of us here have been involved in publishing something,
> professionally,
>
> and I have never used grafics which were not vectorial except in very
>
> rare occasions. So, if you have a clear idea of which resolutions are
> best in a printing
>
> process, you are most welcome.
>
I'm just saying let's take a little extra time in the beginning to make
the images the right size and look great for print (since they need to
be so much larger) and downsample them for the Web and other online
documentation, rather than make great Web images and mess with them and
pay some printer to make them look decent for print. I wasn't trying to
imply other people here didn't have experience working with printers,
and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I just don't want everyone to
spend more time on this in the future when we can start out right from
the beginning. As I said in my last post to Bart's message, everyone's
writing is so great, I'd hate to have it turn into just another boring
OpenSource-looking document. With just a little attention to some issues
up front, it could save a ton of time down the road. :)
Alex
--------------090100040001030502030602
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
Stefano Selleri wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:001b01c2b661$f26b5ac0$080ea8c0@agave">
<meta content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<blockquote style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0,0,0); margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px; ">
<div>If you're not convinced, make a JPG render that is 216x144, and
a 900x600 PNG. Then print both out so that they each measure 2"x3" printed
at 300 dpi and compare the two. Unless you have a cheap inkjet, you will
see a difference. If you don't mind the way the lo-res images look when
printed, I'll shut up.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">No need to do this, I know what will
happen. Only if</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">you upsample with an integer scale factor
and</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">without any blurring you'll get something
decent.</font></div>
</blockquote>
But you can get something better by making it big first, then downsampling.
That's my only point. :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:001b01c2b661$f26b5ac0$080ea8c0@agave">
<blockquote style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0,0,0); margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px; ">
<div>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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">:) </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">That's why I'm for EPS vector image
when possible... those you can scale when</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">you want. For the bitmap images
you are right.</font></div>
</blockquote>
For print, you need EPSes all the time, not just for vector images. If we
do not sent the printer an EPS of all of our images, they will charge $60/hr
(in the US at least) to convert them once they get them, even if they don't
let you know they had to do the conversion. This is how print works, unless
you find a printer that does things differently than everyone else. Print
shops scan images in RGB or LAB color, saved as TIFFs, then convert them
to CMYK and save them as EPSes. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:001b01c2b661$f26b5ac0$080ea8c0@agave">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div> <font face="Arial" size="2">The all of us here have been
involved in publishing something, professionally,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">and I have never used grafics
which were not vectorial except in very</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">rare occasions. So, if you have
a clear idea of which resolutions are best in a printing</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">process, you are most welcome.</font></div>
</blockquote>
I'm just saying let's take a little extra time in the beginning to make the
images the right size and look great for print (since they need to be so
much larger) and downsample them for the Web and other online documentation,
rather than make great Web images and mess with them and pay some printer
to make them look decent for print. I wasn't trying to imply other people
here didn't have experience working with printers, and I'm sorry if I gave
that impression. I just don't want everyone to spend more time on this in
the future when we can start out right from the beginning. As I said in my
last post to Bart's message, everyone's writing is so great, I'd hate to
have it turn into just another boring OpenSource-looking document. With just
a little attention to some issues up front, it could save a ton of time down
the road. :)<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------090100040001030502030602--