[Bf-docboard] chapter_mesh_modelling
Alex Heizer
bf-docboard@blender.org
Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:45:47 -0600
--------------020401010708090809060809
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bart Veldhuizen wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Alex Heizer wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>
>Hi Alex,
>
>I think I've missed something here, listening to the tone of your message.
>As far as I could tell the discussion was about RGB-->CMYK conversion, not
>about the resolution of images, right? As far as I'm concerned you've made
>a very valid point to say that we need to deliver rendered images on a
>standard, high resolution. I don't think anyone here will discuss that.
>What still needs to be decided though is *what* a good resolution for that
>would be, but I'll leave that up to the people with DTP experience (but
>please keep in mind that we have to distribute those images through CVS as
>well!)
>
It just seems as though people's thoughts are, let's just do what we're
doing and worry about what we're going to do for print when the time
comes. I aplolgize if I've been getting the wrong impression, I get
frustrated easily. :) . My biggest concern is for how many problems that
causes when we DO go to get something together for print, and I really
believe we can put together a great thing from the beginning rather than
just do okay for now and worry about the rest later. I think the writing
is awesome, and the project would be sold short if our thought processes
stopped there and didn't also include some preplanning for design.
You can choose to keep the print images out of the CVS if you wanted,
although that may tend to go against OpenSource ideals... Maybe offer
them on CD or DVD for the cost of materials, or if someone wants to
donate space on a server, somewhere out of the CVS tree. I don't know.
For print, the images can get pretty big. I've been working on an annual
report that has grown to about 10 GB. Where to put the print images is a
consideration. The only thing I can donate on that end would be regular
CD or DVD burns of the images...
>The only thing that we would have to figure out is how to automate
>downsampling of the images for web/pdf publication but there are very
>convenient tools like ImageMagick for that..
>
That's not a big problem, ImageMagick is great for that. Also, it would
only take an extra minute in Photoshop to do a Save For Web of any
images that get processed. I'd only be concerned about doing a batch of
downsampling if someone decides the Web images should be a different
finished size, but like you said, ImageMagick would be able to handle
that with no problems.
Sorry for sounding so fiesty before. :)
Alex
--------------020401010708090809060809
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
Bart Veldhuizen wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.44.0301071623540.20343-100000@vrotvrot.com">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Alex Heizer wrote:<br><br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I just don't understand how someone with experience offering to design <br>and set up standards that will allow this documentation to look the best <br>for the Web and print NOT be what's better for us? Such a big discussion <br>for something that will not change how volunteer authors do anything <br>differently except make their images one specific size, and could make <br>the project better.<br><br>I'm not going to push it any more. You can pay a print shop to do this <br>at some later date.<br></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----><br>Hi Alex,<br><br>I think I've missed something here, listening to the tone of your message. <br>As far as I could tell the discussion was about RGB-->CMYK conversion, not <br>about the resolution of images, right? As far as I'm concerned you've made <br>a very valid point to say that we need to deliver rendered images on a <br>standard, high resolution. I don't think anyone here will discuss that. <br>What still needs to be decided though is *what* a good resolution for that <br>would be, but I'll leave that up to the people with DTP experience (but <br>please keep in mind that we have to distribute those images through CVS as <br>well!)</pre>
</blockquote>
It just seems as though people's thoughts are, let's just do what we're doing
and worry about what we're going to do for print when the time comes. I aplolgize
if I've been getting the wrong impression, I get frustrated easily. :) .
My biggest concern is for how many problems that causes when we DO go to
get something together for print, and I really believe we can put together
a great thing from the beginning rather than just do okay for now and worry
about the rest later. I think the writing is awesome, and the project would
be sold short if our thought processes stopped there and didn't also include
some preplanning for design.<br>
<br>
You can choose to keep the print images out of the CVS if you wanted, although
that may tend to go against OpenSource ideals... Maybe offer them on CD or
DVD for the cost of materials, or if someone wants to donate space on a server,
somewhere out of the CVS tree. I don't know. For print, the images can get
pretty big. I've been working on an annual report that has grown to about
10 GB. Where to put the print images is a consideration. The only thing I
can donate on that end would be regular CD or DVD burns of the images...<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.44.0301071623540.20343-100000@vrotvrot.com">
<pre wrap="">The only thing that we would have to figure out is how to automate <br>downsampling of the images for web/pdf publication but there are very <br>convenient tools like ImageMagick for that..</pre>
</blockquote>
That's not a big problem, ImageMagick is great for that. Also, it would only
take an extra minute in Photoshop to do a Save For Web of any images that
get processed. I'd only be concerned about doing a batch of downsampling
if someone decides the Web images should be a different finished size, but
like you said, ImageMagick would be able to handle that with no problems.<br>
<br>
Sorry for sounding so fiesty before. :)<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.44.0301071623540.20343-100000@vrotvrot.com"></blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------020401010708090809060809--