[Bf-docboard] less graphics

[Alex Heizer]

G@l Buki wrote:

> Great!
> One big graphic, why not.
> But don't scale it down rather cut it to the disered size.
>
> I think dpi are just relevant if you print something. On the computer 
> the only thing that matters are the pixels.
> Or did I missunderstand something?


These are the kinds of things that need to be determined about the 
graphics, which is kind of what I was talking about in a previous post 
about standards. For print, the best graphic would need to be a 300dpi 
CMYK EPS, while on the Web it is a 72dpi RGB bitmap, like a JPG, PNG or 
GIF. On the computer screen, it really does only matter the exact number 
of pixels, but if you plan to have this really published at some point 
to paper, you'll need a 300dpi EPS. The best time to determine the size 
and format of the graphics for the whole documentation project is before 
all of the screenshots get made, so nobody has to go and redo them when 
the thing goes to press.

Matt Ebb and I volunteer to work on this, if that's what everyone wants. 
I just know from working with both print and Web that you need to take 
different things into account for each as far as graphics are concerned. 
What I propose, would be something along the lines of this:

1. A set of graphics standards would be set up. This would include 
conventions for size and content, i.e.: 300x200 pixel JPG at 50% 
compression for the Web-based and other online documentation; 300x200 
pixel JPG at 90% compression for a high-res PDF; and  2"x1.5" 300dpi 
CMYK EPS for the print version. The image would contain only the 3D pane 
for examples, or the button pane for settings.
2. Any screenshots would be done as large as possible, and any 
renderings would be done to take into account finished output size, for 
example, 1200x1200 for an image that would go on the printed page at a 
finished size of 4"x4".
3. Someone (an individual or team of individuals) would collect the 
images, process them according to the standards, and output them in two 
or three versions with identical content, one for Web, one for print, 
and one for a high-res PDF. These images would then be returned to the 
source tree for inclusion in their respective products.
4. Someone (an individual or team of individuals) would come up with a 
cool, professional design that would showcase blender as a great program 
that talented people do and should use and be a part of. Since print 
design is different than Web design, that someone could create a couple 
of slightly different, but complementary designs that make blender look 
cool and professional whichever version you're looking at.
5. The someone's in points 3 and 4 would coordinate the design and 
content to make sure it all looks consistent. This could also free up 
authors to not worry about style and focus on content, since the 
designers could ensure everything's formatted correctly and maintain one 
copy.

 From what I understand, we can do a nice design once for the docbook, 
which can then be output in different formats, like for a Website or a 
plaintext version or for print. In which case, we should be able to set 
up output templates so that when the online version is output it uses 
the lo-res bitmaps, and when the printed version is output it will use 
the high-res EPSes.

What do people think? The details would be worked out if that's what 
everyone wants. I just gave some examples that illustrated what I was 
talking about, so I'm not concerned at this point that the printed image 
be 4"x4", or whatever. I can get with Matt and anyone else who is 
interested and work out a draft and bring it back to the group. Does 
anyone think this is a great idea? A waste of time? Does anyone else 
want to work on it, maybe someone really familiar with xml or docbooks?

Alex

>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Bf-docboard] less graphics
> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:45:16 +0100 (MET)
> From: Florian Findeiss <droddl@gmx.de>
> Reply-To: bf-docboard@blender.org
> To: bf-docboard@blender.org
> References: <1041323262.993.1.camel@ferro>
>
>>> Hi Gal,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 03:24, G@l Buki wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> there where some discussions about the size of the manual. I have 
>>>> two suggestions:
>>>>
>>>> Why are the graphics in chapter 5 basic objects all with the 
>>>> interface?
>>>> They would be smaller without it.
>>>>
>>>> And why publishing of every mesh an example in editmode?
>>>> One example should be enough.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. Having 1 small image of the basic object in shaded mode,
>>> without the user interface present, would do the trick. 
>>
>>
>>
>> I will do that, as soon as I have time. Is it okay then to have 1 pic in
>> shaded mode 640x480? Which dpi should I use. I make the screenshots on a
>> 1024x768 desktop resolution!
>>