Empathy List Archives

S

SAIDJACK (at) aol.com

Tue, Aug 28, 2007 10:28 PM

In a message dated 8/28/2007 15:06:22 Pacific Daylight Time, rexa@sonic.net
writes:

PDF is ok, but hard to modify without spending money (like to split a
schematic between multiple 8.5 x 11 pages for printing.)

Orcad generates great schematics in PDF with Acrobat when set to 300 or
better 600dpi. Best printed out on 11x17 on an HP 8500 in color which are
available for around $300 used here...

I hear there is a public-domain PDF writer for windows that's even better
than Acrobat.

JPG can be set to be losless, it's supported by the standard, but I agree
GIF or TIFF is better.

The biggest advantage to JPG and PDF is that everyone around the world can
view the files without having to install a special viewer, use a special OS, or
printer driver etc...

bye,
Said

************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

In a message dated 8/28/2007 15:06:22 Pacific Daylight Time, rexa@sonic.net writes: >PDF is ok, but hard to modify without spending money (like to split a >schematic between multiple 8.5 x 11 pages for printing.) Orcad generates great schematics in PDF with Acrobat when set to 300 or better 600dpi. Best printed out on 11x17 on an HP 8500 in color which are available for around $300 used here... I hear there is a public-domain PDF writer for windows that's even better than Acrobat. JPG can be set to be losless, it's supported by the standard, but I agree GIF or TIFF is better. The biggest advantage to JPG and PDF is that everyone around the world can view the files without having to install a special viewer, use a special OS, or printer driver etc... bye, Said ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

HM

Hal Murray

Tue, Aug 28, 2007 10:48 PM

JPG can be set to be losless, it's supported by the standard, but I
agree GIF or TIFF is better.

gif and png are (normally) lossless compression. They are intended for
graphs and such that only use a few colors.

jpg and tiff are intended for pictures with zillions of colors. jpg is
normally lossy and tiff is normally lossless.

--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

> JPG can be set to be losless, it's supported by the standard, but I > agree GIF or TIFF is better. gif and png are (normally) lossless compression. They are intended for graphs and such that only use a few colors. jpg and tiff are intended for pictures with zillions of colors. jpg is normally lossy and tiff is normally lossless. -- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

MD

Magnus Danielson

Wed, Aug 29, 2007 1:36 AM

From: Hal Murray hmurray@megapathdsl.net
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP E1938 Web Page
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:48:14 -0700
Message-ID: 20070828224815.ADB28BE2B@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net

); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Errors-To: time-nuts-bounces+magnus=rubidium.dyndns.org@febo.com RETRY

JPG can be set to be losless, it's supported by the standard, but I
agree GIF or TIFF is better.

Let's separate the JPEG standard from the baseline JPEG file format JFIF (known
as JPG or .jpg). The JFIF file-format selects a profile of the JPEG standard
also known as baseline JPEG. Baseline JPEG is not lossless. A number of nifty
features from the JPEG standard (such as the IBM entropy codec) is left out the
baseline format. TIFF (which is not one compression algorithm, but a format
supporting several algorithms) supports the full JPEG standard, but this is
rarely supported in real life.

gif and png are (normally) lossless compression. They are intended for
graphs and such that only use a few colors.

jpg and tiff are intended for pictures with zillions of colors. jpg is
normally lossy and tiff is normally lossless.

... in real life. Then we have upcomming JPEG2000. Wavelet compression.

Cheers,
Magnus

From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP E1938 Web Page Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:48:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20070828224815.ADB28BE2B@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> > ); SAEximRunCond expanded to false > Errors-To: time-nuts-bounces+magnus=rubidium.dyndns.org@febo.com RETRY > > > > JPG can be set to be losless, it's supported by the standard, but I > > agree GIF or TIFF is better. Let's separate the JPEG standard from the baseline JPEG file format JFIF (known as JPG or .jpg). The JFIF file-format selects a profile of the JPEG standard also known as baseline JPEG. Baseline JPEG is not lossless. A number of nifty features from the JPEG standard (such as the IBM entropy codec) is left out the baseline format. TIFF (which is not one compression algorithm, but a format supporting several algorithms) supports the full JPEG standard, but this is rarely supported in real life. > gif and png are (normally) lossless compression. They are intended for > graphs and such that only use a few colors. > > jpg and tiff are intended for pictures with zillions of colors. jpg is > normally lossy and tiff is normally lossless. ... in real life. Then we have upcomming JPEG2000. Wavelet compression. Cheers, Magnus

NJ

Neon John

Wed, Aug 29, 2007 3:45 AM

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:28:01 EDT, SAIDJACK@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 8/28/2007 15:06:22 Pacific Daylight Time, rexa@sonic.net
writes:

PDF is ok, but hard to modify without spending money (like to split a
schematic between multiple 8.5 x 11 pages for printing.)

Orcad generates great schematics in PDF with Acrobat when set to 300 or
better 600dpi. Best printed out on 11x17 on an HP 8500 in color which are
available for around $300 used here...

Whythahell would anyone convert a nice compact and effectively infinite resolution
vector file into raster? The file size blows up to something huge and the resolution
is then fixed at whatever DPI was chosen. If the file needs to be rasterized for
printing then the proper place for that to be done is in the printer driver.
Presumably the printer driver writer knew how to optimize the conversion for his
hardware.

I hear there is a public-domain PDF writer for windows that's even better
than Acrobat.

Not even close, at least for the several that I've tried. Ditto a couple of
commercial ones. I despise Adobe the company and dislike the clunky and overpriced
Acrobat software but to generate nice compact 100% compliant pdfs, it's the only way
to go.

Please keep these files in vector format, if for not other reason that it bad karma
to throw away information needlessly, which is what vector/raster conversion does.

John

John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
I'm so cool, I'm afraid to catch a cold.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:28:01 EDT, SAIDJACK@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 8/28/2007 15:06:22 Pacific Daylight Time, rexa@sonic.net >writes: > >>PDF is ok, but hard to modify without spending money (like to split a >>schematic between multiple 8.5 x 11 pages for printing.) > > > >Orcad generates great schematics in PDF with Acrobat when set to 300 or >better 600dpi. Best printed out on 11x17 on an HP 8500 in color which are >available for around $300 used here... Whythahell would anyone convert a nice compact and effectively infinite resolution vector file into raster? The file size blows up to something huge and the resolution is then fixed at whatever DPI was chosen. If the file needs to be rasterized for printing then the proper place for that to be done is in the printer driver. Presumably the printer driver writer knew how to optimize the conversion for his hardware. > >I hear there is a public-domain PDF writer for windows that's even better >than Acrobat. Not even close, at least for the several that I've tried. Ditto a couple of commercial ones. I despise Adobe the company and dislike the clunky and overpriced Acrobat software but to generate nice compact 100% compliant pdfs, it's the only way to go. Please keep these files in vector format, if for not other reason that it bad karma to throw away information needlessly, which is what vector/raster conversion does. John -- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net! Tellico Plains, Occupied TN I'm so cool, I'm afraid to catch a cold.

time-nuts@lists.febo.com

Re: [time-nuts] HP E1938 Web Page

John