Hi,
I need pictures of > 300 dpi of a Pd patch to publish them in an article. I generated postscript files with 'print' in the menu but the copy editor wants a better quality. I also enlarged the fonts of the patch and then generated a postscript file but it still isn't good enough. I used screen capture software on windows and linux but with the same -not good enough- result. Has anyone any tips to solve this issue? Maybe someone that has experience with printing Pd patches in books or articles... (for example I notice that in Miller his book the diagonal lines connecting the objects are really diagonal, not in steps...).
I need a quick answer and solution for the editor before tomorrow/friday evening! Thanks for any advice...
best, Hans r
2012/7/19 Hans Roels hans.roels@base.be
Hi,
I need pictures of > 300 dpi
how does one expect what "300 dots per inch" is supposed to mean, without specifying many _inches_ it has to be? it's like describing the distance between two places in 'km/h'... it's a myth http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html :)
Tim
of a Pd patch to publish them in an article. I generated postscript files
with 'print' in the menu but the copy editor wants a better quality. I also enlarged the fonts of the patch and then generated a postscript file but it still isn't good enough. I used screen capture software on windows and linux but with the same -not good enough- result. Has anyone any tips to solve this issue? Maybe someone that has experience with printing Pd patches in books or articles... (for example I notice that in Miller his book the diagonal lines connecting the objects are really diagonal, not in steps...).
I need a quick answer and solution for the editor before tomorrow/friday evening! Thanks for any advice...
best, Hans r
______________________________**_________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/** listinfo/pd-list http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Hans Roels hans.roels@base.be wrote:
Hi,
I need pictures of > 300 dpi of a Pd patch to publish them in an article. I generated postscript files with 'print' in the menu but the copy editor wants a better quality. I also enlarged the fonts of the patch and then generated a postscript file but it still isn't good enough. I used screen capture software on windows and linux but with the same -not good enough- result. Has anyone any tips to solve this issue? Maybe someone that has experience with printing Pd patches in books or articles... (for example I notice that in Miller his book the diagonal lines connecting the objects are really diagonal, not in steps...).
I need a quick answer and solution for the editor before tomorrow/friday evening! Thanks for any advice...
best, Hans r
Hi Hans,
The postscript files that Pd generates for me (here on Linux at least) are vector-graphic, which means they have a so-to-say "infinite resolution": one can zoom into them endlessly and shapes will still be perfect and pixel-free. (see attached screenshot of pd-window in the foreground and zoomed postscript in the background) I suggest that you check that this applies to your postscript files as well (take a look into them with Document Viewer in Gnome or Ghostscript on Windows) and is they prove to be vector-graphic, you can simply tell the editor not to worry and go ahead using them. (Of course, if someone opens a postscript file with the wrong program, it can look pixelated when it is actually not.)
András
HI all -
I agree with Andres's assessmemt - and I used the 'print' menu item to get all my figures.
I did have to do one stupid thing which was to increase the font size from 10 to about 11.5 (I think) on all the text - I made a sed script to find and change the appropriate bits in the postscript file - oherwise the text comes out differently in teh postscript than it did on the screen.
cheers Miller
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 04:58:10PM +0200, András Murányi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Hans Roels hans.roels@base.be wrote:
Hi,
I need pictures of > 300 dpi of a Pd patch to publish them in an article. I generated postscript files with 'print' in the menu but the copy editor wants a better quality. I also enlarged the fonts of the patch and then generated a postscript file but it still isn't good enough. I used screen capture software on windows and linux but with the same -not good enough- result. Has anyone any tips to solve this issue? Maybe someone that has experience with printing Pd patches in books or articles... (for example I notice that in Miller his book the diagonal lines connecting the objects are really diagonal, not in steps...).
I need a quick answer and solution for the editor before tomorrow/friday evening! Thanks for any advice...
best, Hans r
Hi Hans,
The postscript files that Pd generates for me (here on Linux at least) are vector-graphic, which means they have a so-to-say "infinite resolution": one can zoom into them endlessly and shapes will still be perfect and pixel-free. (see attached screenshot of pd-window in the foreground and zoomed postscript in the background) I suggest that you check that this applies to your postscript files as well (take a look into them with Document Viewer in Gnome or Ghostscript on Windows) and is they prove to be vector-graphic, you can simply tell the editor not to worry and go ahead using them. (Of course, if someone opens a postscript file with the wrong program, it can look pixelated when it is actually not.)
András
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 19/07/12 22:58, András Murányi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Hans Roelshans.roels@base.be wrote:
I need pictures of> 300 dpi of a Pd patch to publish them in an article.
Hi Hans,
The postscript files that Pd generates for me (here on Linux at least) are vector-graphic, which means they have a so-to-say "infinite resolution": one can zoom into them endlessly and shapes will still be perfect and pixel-free. (see attached screenshot of pd-window in the foreground and zoomed postscript in the background) I suggest that you check that this applies to your postscript files as well (take a look into them with Document Viewer in Gnome or Ghostscript on Windows) and is they prove to be vector-graphic, you can simply tell the editor not to worry and go ahead using them. (Of course, if someone opens a postscript file with the wrong program, it can look pixelated when it is actually not.)
if your editor is incapable of dealing with the postscript files and requires you to generate final artwork for them as pixel graphics then you will need to do that work for them. And they will need to do much better than "more than 300dpi" as a spec for what format they require for artwork.
On Linux I just tested a couple of apps and Scribus seems to do a nice job of importing the pd.ps files exported by Pd 0.43.1 ... allowing you to export it as an image file in whatever resolution you like, in many formats ... but as Miller says there is a slight difference in font size that you may need to correct for in Pd if you are relying very much on font size for your layout.
Inkscape didn't cope with the pd.ps file very well at all, and the various PDF viewers I have were more limited in their saving options.
On other OSes there are also plenty of choices for layout apps which will read the pd.ps files properly.
Simon
I'd use ImageMagick and batch it.
On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Simon Wise wrote:
On 19/07/12 22:58, András Murányi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Hans Roelshans.roels@base.be wrote:
I need pictures of> 300 dpi of a Pd patch to publish them in an article.
Hi Hans,
The postscript files that Pd generates for me (here on Linux at least) are vector-graphic, which means they have a so-to-say "infinite resolution": one can zoom into them endlessly and shapes will still be perfect and pixel-free. (see attached screenshot of pd-window in the foreground and zoomed postscript in the background) I suggest that you check that this applies to your postscript files as well (take a look into them with Document Viewer in Gnome or Ghostscript on Windows) and is they prove to be vector-graphic, you can simply tell the editor not to worry and go ahead using them. (Of course, if someone opens a postscript file with the wrong program, it can look pixelated when it is actually not.)
if your editor is incapable of dealing with the postscript files and requires you to generate final artwork for them as pixel graphics then you will need to do that work for them. And they will need to do much better than "more than 300dpi" as a spec for what format they require for artwork.
On Linux I just tested a couple of apps and Scribus seems to do a nice job of importing the pd.ps files exported by Pd 0.43.1 ... allowing you to export it as an image file in whatever resolution you like, in many formats ... but as Miller says there is a slight difference in font size that you may need to correct for in Pd if you are relying very much on font size for your layout.
Inkscape didn't cope with the pd.ps file very well at all, and the various PDF viewers I have were more limited in their saving options.
On other OSes there are also plenty of choices for layout apps which will read the pd.ps files properly.
Simon
Dan Wilcox danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
On 20/07/12 23:39, Dan Wilcox wrote:
I'd use ImageMagick and batch it.
sure ... but the first attempt at resizing resized the pixel image rather than using the vector information, and after a quick look at the man page and failed attempts to use -geometry and -size it was clear it would take some time to go through the options and find the right incantation to open a .ps file at a given resolution ... so I tried scribus, it did the job immediately and I sent the reply.
Simon
-
András Murányi -
Dan Wilcox -
Hans Roels -
Miller Puckette -
Simon Wise -
tim vets