6:25 a.m.
One problem solved, now on to the next. LOL
My friend needs to save an SVG file created in Inkscape in a vector file
format Windows users and software can use. I suggested .wmf, but she
gets an error message that says Uniconvertor failed, with a lot of
errors listing which lines failed. That's my understanding of what failed.
This is the computer...
Windows 7 64 bit 8GB RAM
Inkscape .48.5 R10040
Have I chosen the correct format? Or perhaps enhanced metafile?
I just tried to do the same (Mac OS X Mountain Lion), but the resulting
wmf file did not open correctly in Libre Office Drawing component. I
sent it to my friend and it did not open correctly as a .wmf file, but
the PDF export created on my Mac works fine. Unfortunately, at her end,
it needs to be a vector file, a PDF will not suffice.
We appreciate the help.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
"All progress depends upon the unreasonable person."
George Bernard Shaw
"Cheap prices make for cheap goods; cheap goods make for
cheap men; and cheap men make for a cheap country!"
President William McKinley
http://www.greeleynet.com/~wordwork/airpage.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6:57 a.m.
Hi, Chris,
May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have will
not import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a graphics
image. As you might snidely guess, is MS software. :-(
On 8/25/14 3:43 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Ken Springer
<snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> the PDF export created on my Mac works fine. Unfortunately, at her end,
> it needs to be a vector file, a PDF will not suffice.
The PDF should be vector. At least when I save as PDF it's vector ;)
Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
7:09 a.m.
Postscript might be a solution? As far as I know that is a vector format?
(I could be wrong, however)
-Another Chris
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
Hi, Chris,
May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have will not
import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a graphics image. As
you might snidely guess, is MS software. :-(
On 8/25/14 3:43 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...>
<snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
the PDF export created on my Mac works fine. Unfortunately, at her end,
it needs to be a vector file, a PDF will not suffice.
The PDF should be vector. At least when I save as PDF it's vector ;)
Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing
listInkscape-user@...2510...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
8:46 a.m.
Postscript might be a solution, but neither of us know enough about
postscript to work with it.
On 8/25/14 4:09 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:
Postscript might be a solution? As far as I know that is a vector
format? (I could be wrong, however)
-Another Chris
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...
<mailto:snowshed1@...3003...>> wrote:
Hi, Chris,
May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have
will not import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a
graphics image. As you might snidely guess, is MS software. :-(
On 8/25/14 3:43 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Ken Springer<snowshed1@...3003...>
<mailto:snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
>> the PDF export created on my Mac works fine. Unfortunately, at her end,
>> it needs to be a vector file, a PDF will not suffice.
> The PDF should be vector. At least when I save as PDF it's vector ;)
>
> Chris
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Slashdot TV.
> Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
> http://tv.slashdot.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-user mailing list
> Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
4:20 p.m.
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 15:09 -0700, Chris Tooley wrote:
Postscript might be a solution? As far as I know that is a vector
format? (I could be wrong, however)
PostScript and PDF are related vector file formats that allow bitmaps to
be embedded, just like SVG (not surprising as Adobe, the creator of
PostScript and PDF, was heavily involved with SVG before they bought
Flash). PostScript is a full-fledged computer programming language.
Adobe realized that few people actually used the programming part so
they stripped that out (it required a large amount of resources to run),
made some other modifications (i.e. per page compression) and released
the result as PDF.
Inkscape can import and export both PostScript and PDF.
Tav
12:52 a.m.
Thanks for the explanation, Tav.
Ken
On 8/26/14 1:20 AM, Tavmjong Bah wrote:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 15:09 -0700, Chris Tooley wrote:
> Postscript might be a solution? As far as I know that is a vector
> format? (I could be wrong, however)
PostScript and PDF are related vector file formats that allow bitmaps to
be embedded, just like SVG (not surprising as Adobe, the creator of
PostScript and PDF, was heavily involved with SVG before they bought
Flash). PostScript is a full-fledged computer programming language.
Adobe realized that few people actually used the programming part so
they stripped that out (it required a large amount of resources to run),
made some other modifications (i.e. per page compression) and released
the result as PDF.
Inkscape can import and export both PostScript and PDF.
Tav
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
7:13 a.m.
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 15:57 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
Hi, Chris,
May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have will
not import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a graphics
image. As you might snidely guess, is MS software. :-(
Please use inkscape for windows. There is no point trying to convert to
wmf or other sub-standard vector format if the user is on windows. It's
not like we're charging a lot of money for the windows version of
inkscape ;-)
SVG files can also be opened by Adobe Illustrator and viewed using a web
browser such as Firefox, Chrome and even IE 8+
Martin,
8:55 a.m.
She is using Inkscape for Windows, without company permission. :-) And
she does not have the authority to force any changes. They already told
her to stop using a DTP program she likes in lieu of MS Publisher, but
she got so frustrated with the extra work to get things done with MS
Publisher, she went back to the program she was using before.
I don't know if anyone in her company has Adobe Illustrator, or it's
successor if there is one.
Do you know of any program that would convert an SVG file to some other
format?
Right now, the temp answer may be to save a PDF, but we're searching for
something that will let other users have a vector file to work with.
On 8/25/14 4:13 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 15:57 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
> Hi, Chris,
>
> May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have will
> not import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a graphics
> image. As you might snidely guess, is MS software. :-(
>
Please use inkscape for windows. There is no point trying to convert to
wmf or other sub-standard vector format if the user is on windows. It's
not like we're charging a lot of money for the windows version of
inkscape ;-)
SVG files can also be opened by Adobe Illustrator and viewed using a web
browser such as Firefox, Chrome and even IE 8+
Martin,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
10:07 a.m.
there a few svg to.... converters online, a search should turn up a few
depending on what format you want to convert to.
I take it the DTP software cannot use svg as that IS vector.
Gaz
On 26 August 2014 00:55, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
She is using Inkscape for Windows, without company permission. :-)
And
she does not have the authority to force any changes. They already told
her to stop using a DTP program she likes in lieu of MS Publisher, but
she got so frustrated with the extra work to get things done with MS
Publisher, she went back to the program she was using before.
I don't know if anyone in her company has Adobe Illustrator, or it's
successor if there is one.
Do you know of any program that would convert an SVG file to some other
format?
Right now, the temp answer may be to save a PDF, but we're searching for
something that will let other users have a vector file to work with.
On 8/25/14 4:13 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 15:57 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
Hi, Chris,
May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have will
not import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a graphics
image. As you might snidely guess, is MS software. :-(
Please use inkscape for windows. There is no point trying to convert to
wmf or other sub-standard vector format if the user is on windows. It's
not like we're charging a lot of money for the windows version of
inkscape ;-)
SVG files can also be opened by Adobe Illustrator and viewed using a web
browser such as Firefox, Chrome and even IE 8+
Martin,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing
listInkscape-user@...2510...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
10:51 a.m.
I don't know if her preferred DTP software will import SVG files. What
we have to deal with is, MS Publisher 2010 must be able to utilize the
finished file. There's no option there. People think MS stuff is the be
all end all and simply won't consider anything else. :-(
So, instead of having a single vector file that can be easily scaled to
any size, we may end up exporting a number of different sizes of jpgs
for everyone else to use.
Ken
On 8/25/14 7:07 PM, Gary Hawkins wrote:
there a few svg to.... converters online, a search should turn up a
few depending on what format you want to convert to.
I take it the DTP software cannot use svg as that IS vector.
Gaz
On 26 August 2014 00:55, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...
<mailto:snowshed1@...3003...>> wrote:
She is using Inkscape for Windows, without company permission.
:-) And she does not have the authority to force any changes.
They already told her to stop using a DTP program she likes in
lieu of MS Publisher, but she got so frustrated with the extra
work to get things done with MS Publisher, she went back to the
program she was using before.
I don't know if anyone in her company has Adobe Illustrator, or
it's successor if there is one.
Do you know of any program that would convert an SVG file to some
other format?
Right now, the temp answer may be to save a PDF, but we're
searching for something that will let other users have a vector
file to work with.
On 8/25/14 4:13 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 15:57 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
>> Hi, Chris,
>>
>> May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have will
>> not import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a graphics
>> image. As you might snidely guess, is MS software. :-(
>>
> Please use inkscape for windows. There is no point trying to convert to
> wmf or other sub-standard vector format if the user is on windows. It's
> not like we're charging a lot of money for the windows version of
> inkscape ;-)
>
> SVG files can also be opened by Adobe Illustrator and viewed using a web
> browser such as Firefox, Chrome and even IE 8+
>
> Martin,
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Slashdot TV.
> Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
> http://tv.slashdot.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-user mailing list
> Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
12:02 a.m.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
I don't know if her preferred DTP software will import SVG files.
What we
have to deal with is, MS Publisher 2010 must be able to utilize the finished
file. There's no option there.
Ah. Publisher. Lovely ;)
Whenever someone sends me a .PUB, I use Zamzar (
http://www.zamzar.com/ ) to convert it to something I can open.
Perhaps you can try the other way around? I'd try feeding it SVG or
PDF and asking for EPS, EMF, or WMF maybe. I'm not sure what
Publisher wants for vector import - I haven't used it in ages, and
don't plan to ;)
Convince corporate to use Scribus for DTP, and you're doing everyone a favor ;)
Chris
12:43 a.m.
I talked my friend into going to a local Publisher course at the
library. She'd been struggling with using Open Office to do her
projects, and didn't want to change. After the class, she started
saying she needed page layout software to do the work. I also took the
course, my way of getting her to go, and found some of the same issues
with Publisher 2007 that I found in Publisher XXXX that went with Office
Professional 4.3, Windows for Workgroups days. I suspect MS just
updates Publisher to work with the current operating systems and nothing
else.
I tried an SVG and PDF on Zamzar, output was only bitmapped, html, and
ebook variations. Not a single vector graphic format. Based on a
couple of comments others have made in this thread, I suspect SVG has
features in it's vector file format that no other vector format
supports. Which eliminates any other vector format use for some things
created in Inkscape.
As I mentioned in another post, changing the corporate mindset is not on
her agenda. It probably doesn't help that it's an international
corporation.
I've wanted to try Scribus, but have never had the time.
Ken
On 8/26/14 9:02 AM, Chris Mohler wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Ken Springer
<snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> I don't know if her preferred DTP software will import SVG files. What we
> have to deal with is, MS Publisher 2010 must be able to utilize the finished
> file. There's no option there.
Ah. Publisher. Lovely ;)
Whenever someone sends me a .PUB, I use Zamzar (
http://www.zamzar.com/ ) to convert it to something I can open.
Perhaps you can try the other way around? I'd try feeding it SVG or
PDF and asking for EPS, EMF, or WMF maybe. I'm not sure what
Publisher wants for vector import - I haven't used it in ages, and
don't plan to ;)
Convince corporate to use Scribus for DTP, and you're doing everyone a favor ;)
Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
1:57 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, at 08:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
I've wanted to try Scribus, but have never had the time.
Just FYI that Scribus would be roughly equivalent to QuarkXPress or
Adobe InDesign, perhaps leaning more strongly to Quark. Those are the
more professional apps used by the printing industry (moreso than MS
stuff).
Since Scribus is at that 'pro' level, it does take a bit more to learn.
However it's generally considered worth the effort.
--
Jon A. Cruz
jon@...204...
2:48 a.m.
From what I've read in the past, my impression was that Scribus was not
at that level. It's nice to know it is.
I've avoided mentioning the DTP program she's using so no one would get
upset, but it's Serif's Page Plus X6, which is 2 versions old. I have no
idea of the power of X8. When I used Atari computers, I used Calamus,
which is still available, and the equal of Quark and InDesign.
Serif was getting rid of their copies of X6, only cost me $25, and a
good way to get her to try page layout software. Now she's hooked! LOL
But we now have put Scribus on the list of something to try if/when her
uses evolve to wanting to do more than X6 is capable of.
Ken
On 8/26/14 10:57 AM, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, at 08:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
> I've wanted to try Scribus, but have never had the time.
>
>
Just FYI that Scribus would be roughly equivalent to QuarkXPress or
Adobe InDesign, perhaps leaning more strongly to Quark. Those are the
more professional apps used by the printing industry (moreso than MS
stuff).
Since Scribus is at that 'pro' level, it does take a bit more to learn.
However it's generally considered worth the effort.
10:44 a.m.
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 17:55 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
She is using Inkscape for Windows, without company permission. :-)
And she does not have the authority to force any changes. They
already told her to stop using a DTP program she likes in lieu of MS
Publisher, but she got so frustrated with the extra work to get things
done with MS Publisher, she went back to the program she was using
before.
I don't know if anyone in her company has Adobe Illustrator, or it's
successor if there is one.
Sounds like the company is broken. File a requisition, protest or other
form of officious paperwork requiring an audit of the workflow. If no
one in a company pushes back against dumb, then the company blindly goes
on mindlessly performing things in ways that are not in it's best
interest.
IMO It's every employee's responsibility to flag silly corporate
behavior when they see it. And I think this counts are super bad.
Good luck!
Martin,
10:59 a.m.
I've tried to get her to at least get permission to use what she
prefers, but she won't go for it. But, maybe frustration will bring
about a change, since she finally got tired of Publisher and, since she
has admin privileges on her computer (laptop), she put her preferred
software on anyway, and now Inkscape.
I had to work on her to get her to do her first project in Inkscape
rather than a photo editing program, but now that she's found some of
the special effects, she's off and running.
Ken
On 8/25/14 7:44 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 17:55 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
> She is using Inkscape for Windows, without company permission. :-)
> And she does not have the authority to force any changes. They
> already told her to stop using a DTP program she likes in lieu of MS
> Publisher, but she got so frustrated with the extra work to get things
> done with MS Publisher, she went back to the program she was using
> before.
>
> I don't know if anyone in her company has Adobe Illustrator, or it's
> successor if there is one.
Sounds like the company is broken. File a requisition, protest or other
form of officious paperwork requiring an audit of the workflow. If no
one in a company pushes back against dumb, then the company blindly goes
on mindlessly performing things in ways that are not in it's best
interest.
IMO It's every employee's responsibility to flag silly corporate
behavior when they see it. And I think this counts are super bad.
Good luck!
Martin,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
4:11 p.m.
On 26/08/2014 03:59, Ken Springer wrote:
but now that she's found some of
the special effects, she's off and running.
This sounds like a problem.
Generally, the "special effects" (Filters menu) will not survive the
journey *out* of SVG.
In the PDF export screen there's the option to turn the filters into
bitmaps - that's the only way those effects make it through. (This can
make the file rather large - depending on the size of your drawing and
the number of parts that are effects.)
I think exporting a range of jpg files in various sizes will work best
for you.
/d
12:56 a.m.
I was beginning to suspect the other vector formats do not support some
of the features of SVG. I ran into similar issues 20 or so years ago
with vector file formats.
The special effects did not work for her in her PDF file, but it did for
me. I find out if that option is turned on in her Inkscape install.
It looks like Inkscape doesn't export/save jpg files. :-( Hope that's
remedied in the next version. We've discovered that PNG is not always
the best file format. What bothers me most about the format is the
sheer size, since it's lossless, just like TIFF.
Ken
On 8/26/14 1:11 AM, Donn wrote:
On 26/08/2014 03:59, Ken Springer wrote:
> but now that she's found some of
> the special effects, she's off and running.
This sounds like a problem.
Generally, the "special effects" (Filters menu) will not survive the
journey *out* of SVG.
In the PDF export screen there's the option to turn the filters into
bitmaps - that's the only way those effects make it through. (This can
make the file rather large - depending on the size of your drawing and
the number of parts that are effects.)
I think exporting a range of jpg files in various sizes will work best
for you.
/d
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
1:27 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
The special effects did not work for her in her PDF file, but it did
for
me. I find out if that option is turned on in her Inkscape install.
Special effects are almost always a problem, no matter what program
you're using For example if I've added a drop shadow in Illustrator,
I have to rasterize that before turning it in or there's a good chance
the PDF will glitch when it's printed.
My bad on Zamzar - 99% of the time I'm just turning .PUB files info
.PDF so I can open them. When I try to convert a .SVG, the only
vector format available is PDF, which gets you right back to where you
started from ;)
Chris
2 a.m.
Zamzar is a good site to try to remember, so no problem there.
Now that the special effects issue is rattling around in the head,
memories kick in, and I can see the potential problems with any vector
type drawing program.
Ken
On 8/26/14 10:27 AM, Chris Mohler wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Ken Springer
<snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> The special effects did not work for her in her PDF file, but it did for
> me. I find out if that option is turned on in her Inkscape install.
Special effects are almost always a problem, no matter what program
you're using For example if I've added a drop shadow in Illustrator,
I have to rasterize that before turning it in or there's a good chance
the PDF will glitch when it's printed.
My bad on Zamzar - 99% of the time I'm just turning .PUB files info
.PDF so I can open them. When I try to convert a .SVG, the only
vector format available is PDF, which gets you right back to where you
started from ;)
Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
1:29 a.m.
When I said export jpg, I meant export png and then convert those to
jpg. Sorry, I'm used to the process and on Linux it's a simple convert
command.
For PDF files that are missing the effects, look to the dialog that
opens when you save to pdf format. There's a tick box there that tells
it to make images (bitmaps) of everything with effects. If you have it
off, they will be missing in the pdf. (With that option enabled, the
PDF produced is not pure vector because of all the bitmaps mixed-in.)
All in all, Inkscape is not quite end-to-end and you'll need to
supplement your process with other software and make some compromises.
Good luck.
/d
On 26 August 2014 17:56, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
I was beginning to suspect the other vector formats do not support
some
of the features of SVG. I ran into similar issues 20 or so years ago
with vector file formats.
The special effects did not work for her in her PDF file, but it did for
me. I find out if that option is turned on in her Inkscape install.
It looks like Inkscape doesn't export/save jpg files. :-( Hope that's
remedied in the next version. We've discovered that PNG is not always
the best file format. What bothers me most about the format is the
sheer size, since it's lossless, just like TIFF.
Ken
On 8/26/14 1:11 AM, Donn wrote:
> On 26/08/2014 03:59, Ken Springer wrote:
>> but now that she's found some of
>> the special effects, she's off and running.
> This sounds like a problem.
>
> Generally, the "special effects" (Filters menu) will not survive the
> journey *out* of SVG.
>
> In the PDF export screen there's the option to turn the filters into
> bitmaps - that's the only way those effects make it through. (This can
> make the file rather large - depending on the size of your drawing and
> the number of parts that are effects.)
>
> I think exporting a range of jpg files in various sizes will work best
> for you.
>
>
> /d
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Slashdot TV.
> Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
> http://tv.slashdot.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-user mailing list
> Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
2:21 a.m.
No problem on the export thingy, I'd looked for it some time back and
couldn't find it. So I thought I just missed it.
The PDF issue is apparently resolved, my friend can't remember exactly
what it was she was doing that caused problems. I chalk all of that up
to the "learning curve".
We seem to have the issues either solved or workarounds figured out, and
she's not as frustrated now. Her first project, very simple, turned out
really nice, and now she's tweaking it. LOL
Not being "end-to-end" is an issue where it seems most open source
projects have some catching up to do. Plus bugs, which is why I finally
gave up on Libre Office. I think that's frustrating for many new uses
of open source software that are used to more options instead of having
to go to extra work to do the additional converting.
My 2 pet peeves with Inkscape on this Mac are what I suspect is a normal
Linux file explorer and open/save dialogs, and highlighted text is white
letters on yellow background, almost impossible to see. Oh, and greyed
out text is all but invisible.
Maybe there are settings for that, I haven't had time to look.
Ken
My 2 pet b
On 8/26/14 10:29 AM, Donn Ingle wrote:
When I said export jpg, I meant export png and then convert those to
jpg. Sorry, I'm used to the process and on Linux it's a simple convert
command.
For PDF files that are missing the effects, look to the dialog that
opens when you save to pdf format. There's a tick box there that tells
it to make images (bitmaps) of everything with effects. If you have it
off, they will be missing in the pdf. (With that option enabled, the
PDF produced is not pure vector because of all the bitmaps mixed-in.)
All in all, Inkscape is not quite end-to-end and you'll need to
supplement your process with other software and make some compromises.
Good luck.
/d
On 26 August 2014 17:56, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> I was beginning to suspect the other vector formats do not support some
> of the features of SVG. I ran into similar issues 20 or so years ago
> with vector file formats.
>
> The special effects did not work for her in her PDF file, but it did for
> me. I find out if that option is turned on in her Inkscape install.
>
> It looks like Inkscape doesn't export/save jpg files. :-( Hope that's
> remedied in the next version. We've discovered that PNG is not always
> the best file format. What bothers me most about the format is the
> sheer size, since it's lossless, just like TIFF.
>
>
> Ken
>
>
> On 8/26/14 1:11 AM, Donn wrote:
>> On 26/08/2014 03:59, Ken Springer wrote:
>>> but now that she's found some of
>>> the special effects, she's off and running.
>> This sounds like a problem.
>>
>> Generally, the "special effects" (Filters menu) will not survive the
>> journey *out* of SVG.
>>
>> In the PDF export screen there's the option to turn the filters into
>> bitmaps - that's the only way those effects make it through. (This can
>> make the file rather large - depending on the size of your drawing and
>> the number of parts that are effects.)
>>
>> I think exporting a range of jpg files in various sizes will work best
>> for you.
>>
>>
>> /d
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Slashdot TV.
>> Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
>> http://tv.slashdot.org/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Inkscape-user mailing list
>> Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Slashdot TV.
> Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
> http://tv.slashdot.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-user mailing list
> Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
3:58 a.m.
Ken,
Inkscape isn't ever going to export to jpeg.
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 11:21 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
Not being "end-to-end" is an issue where it seems most open
source
projects have some catching up to do.
No. No. No. Open Source doesn't "catch up" it simply is what users have
invested it to be. It's not here to meet your expectations, it's hear to
allow you to meet them for yourself. Open Source isn't freeware and it's
not a charity. It's something much bigger and more important
fundamentally to how software is constructed and why users should care
about how it's made and be literally involved.
Plus bugs, which is why I finally gave up on Libre Office.
Did you try getting involved to solve the issues? If Libre Office had a
fundraiser, would you help?
I think that's frustrating for many new uses of open source
software
that are used to more options instead of having to go to extra work to
do the additional converting.
The unix model which most open source projects follow is "do one thing
well" and not "do a million things sort of ok". this is the same sort of
kind of model Apple follows. We're not going to convert raster images in
inkscape because inkscape is a vector editor and not a raster converter
tool. Using more than one tool isn't a burden on users, it's an
opportunity.
Martin,
9:55 a.m.
On 8/26/14 12:58 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
Ken,
Inkscape isn't ever going to export to jpeg.
That is their choice.
But you know, that course just makes it harder for them to get many
computer users to choose their product. If that's their choice, they
also should not be surprised at it, nor complain privately about their
program's acceptance in general.
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 11:21 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
> Not being "end-to-end" is an issue where it seems most open source
> projects have some catching up to do.
No. No. No. Open Source doesn't "catch up" it simply is what users have
invested it to be. It's not here to meet your expectations, it's hear to
allow you to meet them for yourself. Open Source isn't freeware and it's
not a charity. It's something much bigger and more important
fundamentally to how software is constructed and why users should care
about how it's made and be literally involved.
No matter who the user is, the
user comes with expectations. The
proportion of users who are capable of making changes to the software,
in one way or another, are minimal in today's world.
How it's constructed and made isn't worth much if it doesn't do the job
the user desires, and the user cannot contribute in whatever way. Even
more so, it's depressing to try to participate in a project only to be
told your concerns are not important enough to be considered.
> Plus bugs, which is why I finally gave up on Libre Office.
Did you try getting involved to solve the issues? If Libre Office had a
fundraiser, would you help?
I did. My only contribution could be reporting of
bugs. I'm not a
programmer, I'm a computer user, looking for software that does the job
I need. Then when it doesn't, be told your issues are not important?
Why would I donate to a fundraiser when I've been told the issue isn't
important?
> I think that's frustrating for many new uses of open source
software
> that are used to more options instead of having to go to extra work to
> do the additional converting.
The unix model which most open source projects follow is "do one thing
well" and not "do a million things sort of ok". this is the same sort of
kind of model Apple follows. We're not going to convert raster images in
inkscape because inkscape is a vector editor and not a raster converter
tool. Using more than one tool isn't a burden on users, it's an
opportunity.
But often having only 1 tool is a limitation. MS seems to follow the
idea of doing a lot of things, but usually poorly. That's been their
reputation for years. If Inkscape combined vector drawing with raster
editing plus a bit of page layout/word processing capabilities, I'd
agree they would likely be doing a million things sort of OK. Which it
already does to a very limited extent. You have basic text
capabilities, which includes kerning. That's a text function which MS
Word and Publisher do not have.
You already convert to a raster image with the export of the PNG
format. If you don't want to convert to raster images, take PNG export out.
But exporting in a bitmapped format has nothing to do with the tool,
Inkscape. The tool is what lets you create the graphic. The filetype
is just the end result, having nothing to do with the actual creation of
the original graphic.
Mind you, I'm not saying Inkscape is a bad product. I'm saying the
limitation of just the one raster format, one that is not that well
known to many users, will limit its acceptance by others. Myself, I've
not given up on it, but I'm sure the highlighting issue will eventually
drive me away. My eyes are not what they used to be. :-(
7:41 p.m.
This is off topic, but the original topic seems to have expired a few
replies back, anyway. This is surprising:
"> Inkscape isn't ever going to export to jpeg."
Really? When I was first starting to learn how to use Inkscape, I ask why a
feature meant to export PNGs was called Export Bitmap (and not "Export
PNG"). (As a newb, I had overlooked it, because I thought it meant "export
BMP"!) The answer I was given (and that I've repeated to others) is that
Export Bitmap is called that, because eventually more "bitmap" (raster)
formats will be exportable from there, in the future, and specifically, JPG
was mentioned as an example. Of course, this was a few or maybe several
years ago, and I'd never be able to find that topic and who told me that.
But still, I've been thinking JPG exports would happen some day.
Is this something that's changed, over the years? Or was that just plain
inaccurate info?
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Martin Owens" <doctormo@...155...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:58 PM
To: "Inkscape User Community" <inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] Inkscape and Uniconvertor
Ken,
Inkscape isn't ever going to export to jpeg.
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 11:21 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
> Not being "end-to-end" is an issue where it seems most open source
> projects have some catching up to do.
No. No. No. Open Source doesn't "catch up" it simply is what users have
invested it to be. It's not here to meet your expectations, it's hear to
allow you to meet them for yourself. Open Source isn't freeware and it's
not a charity. It's something much bigger and more important
fundamentally to how software is constructed and why users should care
about how it's made and be literally involved.
> Plus bugs, which is why I finally gave up on Libre Office.
Did you try getting involved to solve the issues? If Libre Office had a
fundraiser, would you help?
> I think that's frustrating for many new uses of open source software
> that are used to more options instead of having to go to extra work to
> do the additional converting.
The unix model which most open source projects follow is "do one thing
well" and not "do a million things sort of ok". this is the same sort of
kind of model Apple follows. We're not going to convert raster images in
inkscape because inkscape is a vector editor and not a raster converter
tool. Using more than one tool isn't a burden on users, it's an
opportunity.
Martin,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
3:38 a.m.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Brynn <brynn@...3089...> wrote:
Is this something that's changed, over the years? Or was that
just plain
inaccurate info?
To put it simply, if it's not on the roadmap and if nobody specifically
has it in their plans, I wouldn't expect it. I'm not aware of anyone
working on implementing exporting to other raster formats at this
time. Does that
mean nobody will ever have that itch? No. But it's not really a high
priority for the core team as things stand.
Cheers,
Josh
7:21 a.m.
"Does that
mean nobody will ever have that itch? No. But it's not really a
high
priority for the core team as things stand."
Then maybe it would be a good idea to change the name of the dialog to
"Export PNG". I wouldn't exactly call it a frequently asked question, but I
do see it asked 2 or 3 times per year. Should I make a bug report?
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Josh Andler" <scislac@...155...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:38 PM
To: "Inkscape User Community" <inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] Inkscape and Uniconvertor
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Brynn <brynn@...3089...>
wrote:
> Is this something that's changed, over the years? Or was that just plain
> inaccurate info?
To put it simply, if it's not on the roadmap and if nobody specifically
has it in their plans, I wouldn't expect it. I'm not aware of anyone
working on implementing exporting to other raster formats at this
time. Does that
mean nobody will ever have that itch? No. But it's not really a high
priority for the core team as things stand.
Cheers,
Josh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
4:45 p.m.
To put it simply, if it's not on the roadmap and if nobody
specifically
has it in their plans, I wouldn't expect it. I'm not aware of anyone
working on implementing exporting to other raster formats at this
time. Does that
mean nobody will ever have that itch? No. But it's not really a high
priority for the core team as things stand.
But if someone else will implement exporting in different bittmap
formats (it will be most probably only few lines of code, because all
the low-level work is handled by the GTK library; the only difficulty
would be to find the place where to put them), would it be accepted into
the official version?
5:13 p.m.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:45 AM, A. da Mek <a.da_mek0@...2860...> wrote:
But if someone else will implement exporting in different bittmap
formats (it will be most probably only few lines of code, because all
the low-level work is handled by the GTK library; the only difficulty
would be to find the place where to put them), would it be accepted into
the official version?
Chances are that if it was as simple to do correctly as you think, it
likely would have been implemented already. However to directly answer
your question, we are always open to applying patches provided they
pass being tested and having code reviewed and the author is willing
to modify them based on feedback.
Cheers,
Josh
5:21 p.m.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 12:45 AM, A. da Mek wrote:
But if someone else will implement exporting in different bittmap
formats (it will be most probably only few lines of code, because all
the low-level work is handled by the GTK library; the only difficulty
would be to find the place where to put them), would it be accepted into
the official version?
Yes...
However it would probably be quite a bit more than just a few lines of
code. To handle JPEG properly, significant interactive GUI work is also
needed. A good reference would be to see how GIMP handles this.
http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-images-out.html#file-jpeg-load
Things get especially 'interesting' when you enable the "Show preview in
image window" checkbox. The main GIMP window for the image suddenly
becomes the live preview that allows the end user to get the correct
settings figured out.
--
Jon A. Cruz
jon@...204...
1:52 a.m.
Dne 29.8.2014 v 8:21 Jon A. Cruz napsal(a):
However it would probably be quite a bit more than just a few lines
of
code. To handle JPEG properly, significant interactive GUI work is also
needed. A good reference would be to see how GIMP handles this.
Of course the full implementation of all options and metadata would be
complex, but what I was thinking about was simply to use the
"gdk_pixbuf_save" function, which saves as "jpeg", "png",
"ico" and
"bmp", and more formats may be installed.
It allows to set the "quality" parameter, but even with some fixed value
(for example 85) it could be enough for what many users need.
So no extra GUI would be added, only in the dialog "Select a filename
for exporting", the combo "Save as type" would have more items.
3:05 a.m.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 09:52 AM, A. da Mek wrote:
Dne 29.8.2014 v 8:21 Jon A. Cruz napsal(a):
> However it would probably be quite a bit more than just a few lines of
> code. To handle JPEG properly, significant interactive GUI work is also
> needed. A good reference would be to see how GIMP handles this.
Of course the full implementation of all options and metadata would be
complex, but what I was thinking about was simply to use the
"gdk_pixbuf_save" function, which saves as "jpeg", "png",
"ico" and
"bmp", and more formats may be installed.
It allows to set the "quality" parameter, but even with some fixed value
(for example 85) it could be enough for what many users need.
So no extra GUI would be added, only in the dialog "Select a filename
for exporting", the combo "Save as type" would have more items.
Yes... but the problem is that in general this ends up with half a
solution which for end users is often worse than no solution. Especially
being a graphics program, our end users tend to have more than the
minimal case expectations. At a minimum we need a preview to show what
the different settings will do.
We've looked into this several times, and unfortunately raw
gdk_pixbuf_save use by itself probably won't make many end users happy.
One of the possible results is that people don't get the quality of JPEG
that they need (too large filesize, too blocky, etc.) and tell people
'Inkscape sucks, don't use it'.
--
Jon A. Cruz
jon@...204...
4:08 a.m.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:05:13 -0700
"Jon A. Cruz" <jon@...204...> wrote:
We've looked into this several times, and unfortunately raw
gdk_pixbuf_save use by itself probably won't make many end users
happy. One of the possible results is that people don't get the
quality of JPEG that they need (too large filesize, too blocky, etc.)
and tell people 'Inkscape sucks, don't use it'.
Which just goes to prove: No good deed goes unpunished!
LOL, this whole thing is kind of bikeshedding anyway. We're using more
electronic ink discussing one arcane export, that can be easily handled
with a known good converter, than discussing an entire, SVG compliant
vector graphics program.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
6:07 a.m.
Yes it is bikeshedding.
Just a reminder, from previous comments about who should or shouldn't
use free software, how open source works, to less than subtle
political statements about the US, that stuff really isn't appropriate
for this list. There are plenty of other discussion groups online to
meet your needs if that's what you want to talk about.
We embrace the wide audience that Inkscape has found and encourage
people to use it if it works for them. If it's found to be lacking in
some way, the bug tracker is probably a better place to make requests
or report issues.
Cheers,
Josh
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steve Litt <slitt@...2357...> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:05:13 -0700
"Jon A. Cruz" <jon@...204...> wrote:
> We've looked into this several times, and unfortunately raw
> gdk_pixbuf_save use by itself probably won't make many end users
> happy. One of the possible results is that people don't get the
> quality of JPEG that they need (too large filesize, too blocky, etc.)
> and tell people 'Inkscape sucks, don't use it'.
Which just goes to prove: No good deed goes unpunished!
LOL, this whole thing is kind of bikeshedding anyway. We're using more
electronic ink discussing one arcane export, that can be easily handled
with a known good converter, than discussing an entire, SVG compliant
vector graphics program.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
6:53 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
Not being "end-to-end" is an issue where it seems most open
source projects
have some catching up to do. Plus bugs, which is why I finally gave up on
Libre Office. I think that's frustrating for many new uses of open source
software that are used to more options instead of having to go to extra work
to do the additional converting.
I find the opposite. I have InDesign 2014 and it's impossible for me
to overstate how much I loathe booting into Win7 to use it. And from
the days of Illustrator 6 and Photoshop 4 all the way through the
current versions of the Adobe suite there have always been potential
pitfalls when moving items from one program to another. In other
words, I find it *easier* to move most things through formats in the
open-source world. To be fair, some things are harder.
I'm way happier with linux as my main OS and XP running in its little
virtual "jail cell" for when I need the Adobe stuff. I have lots of
little scripts and tweaks that really make my life a thousand times
easier than when in I'm in Windows. I think my favorite is the 'chop'
command. 'chop 2 4' means: take every PDF in the folder, remove all
pages except 2 and 4. Really stupid, but beats having to fire up some
GUI once a month to trim a set of files. I could go on, but I won't ;)
Anyway, wandering a bit more toward the topic - Scribus doesn't have
all of the features of InDesign (nor will it, or should it). But it
is a solid DTP program, and makes excellent PDFs. When I need to lay
out a multi-page item, it's my first choice. Never had any trouble
importing Inkscape drawings into Scribus either.
Chris
8:02 a.m.
On 8/26/14 3:53 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Ken Springer
<snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> Not being "end-to-end" is an issue where it seems most open source
projects
> have some catching up to do. Plus bugs, which is why I finally gave up on
> Libre Office. I think that's frustrating for many new uses of open source
> software that are used to more options instead of having to go to extra work
> to do the additional converting.
I find the opposite. I have InDesign 2014 and it's impossible for me
to overstate how much I loathe booting into Win7 to use it. And from
the days of Illustrator 6 and Photoshop 4 all the way through the
current versions of the Adobe suite there have always been potential
pitfalls when moving items from one program to another. In other
words, I find it *easier* to move most things through formats in the
open-source world. To be fair, some things are harder.
Agreed, there's always
been the pitfalls, and always will be. Simply no
way around it, as programmers make mistakes, specs for a particular file
format often changes as time goes by, and new features will always come
along.
These days, though, most people who use computers don't want to have to
do things outside the program they are using. I'd wager most don't know
how, and don't want to have to go through those extra steps. In fact,
my friend is downright pi$$ed it doesn't export jpg, which arguably is
probably the most common file format out there for graphics. And for
her use, and my usual uses, jpg is the better choice.
Myself, I'll do it, but I don't like doing it anymore. I simply want to
get the job done as fast as I can. By fast, that means eliminating any
other needed steps of other software when I know some software will do
it for me.
Is it Adobe, Win7, or both that you loathe?
I'm way happier with linux as my main OS and XP running in its
little
virtual "jail cell" for when I need the Adobe stuff. I have lots of
little scripts and tweaks that really make my life a thousand times
easier than when in I'm in Windows. I think my favorite is the 'chop'
command. 'chop 2 4' means: take every PDF in the folder, remove all
pages except 2 and 4. Really stupid, but beats having to fire up some
GUI once a month to trim a set of files. I could go on, but I won't ;)
I really
would like to try Linux. On the computer I built, I even left
space on the boot drive to install Linux some day. But time is a
factor, I have none. LOL So, those extra steps you don't mind doing
keeps me just further away from the opportunity to try Linux.
The fact that you have those scripts and tweaks puts you in a class of
user apart from the average user today. That's not a bad thing, but
it's also something I lost interest in long, long ago. There are other
things in my life I'd rather do. :-)
It also depends on the users needs. For me, I might have to do
something like your chop command once in 4 months. That's not worth my
time to even attempt a script, since I can do the same thing using
Preview in OS X Mountain Lion. Not as quickly, but not really egregious
either.
Anyway, wandering a bit more toward the topic - Scribus doesn't
have
all of the features of InDesign (nor will it, or should it). But it
is a solid DTP program, and makes excellent PDFs. When I need to lay
out a multi-page item, it's my first choice. Never had any trouble
importing Inkscape drawings into Scribus either.
I can't imagine ever needing
all the features of InDesign. Heck, I
don't even know what they are. LOL Even worse, I can't imagine even
wanting to pay for it. <G>
Being an open source program, I'm not surprised there's no problem
importing Inkscape drawings. Just like you rarely have problems
importing MS files into MS software. From the outside looking in, it
seems there's a lot of cooperation in this area.
8:27 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, at 04:02 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
Being an open source program, I'm not surprised there's no problem
importing Inkscape drawings. Just like you rarely have problems
importing MS files into MS software. From the outside looking in, it
seems there's a lot of cooperation in this area.
Actually...
:-)
One of the big problems Microsoft has is in importing older versions of
files. In general Libre Office is much better at importing older MS Word
docs than current MS Word is. This comes up in governmental and
educational use fairly regularly. Part of the problem is poor design of
the internals and tying them to the file formats. Part comes from MS's
monetary incentive to push people to move to later versions of things.
Regardless of the causes, compatibility and being able to import older
versions of Word (and other) docs is something that often pushes people
into using open source in the first place.
I've also worked places where the MS site licensing allowed execs and
architects to use versions of various MS software that would create
files the majority of the companies' employees could not open (at least
not without resorting to piracy). Word, Visio, Excell... there are fun
combinations of things that just would not work, all within MS products
themselves.
--
Jon A. Cruz
jon@...204...
8:31 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Jon A. Cruz <jon@...204...> wrote:
there are fun
combinations of things that just would not work, all within MS products
themselves.
+1 - and it's ever so lovely how Word silently substitutes fonts.
Even in a MS office, I always open the doc in LibreOffice or
OpenOffice to see what the font was supposed to be ;)
Chris
10:06 a.m.
On 8/26/14 5:27 PM, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, at 04:02 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
> Being an open source program, I'm not surprised there's no problem
> importing Inkscape drawings. Just like you rarely have problems
> importing MS files into MS software. From the outside looking in, it
> seems there's a lot of cooperation in this area.
Actually...
:-)
One of the big problems Microsoft has is in importing older versions of
files. In general Libre Office is much better at importing older MS Word
docs than current MS Word is. This comes up in governmental and
educational use fairly regularly. Part of the problem is poor design of
the internals and tying them to the file formats. Part comes from MS's
monetary incentive to push people to move to later versions of things.
It seems
their latest gig for their monetary incentive is to force
everyone to use their software on the web, and pay a subscription fee.
And they could shut off access to any older web based version leaving
you with no choice but to upgrade, and keep on paying the subscription
fee. I wonder if that will drive any customers away.
Last I knew, LO was still having problems with the "x" versions of the
files. I stopped following them long ago.
Regardless of the causes, compatibility and being able to import
older
versions of Word (and other) docs is something that often pushes people
into using open source in the first place.
I would add cost to that list. That is
one reason I gave open source
software a huge try when I bought this Mac. But I've been too
disappointed in many of the more sophisticated products. So, have gone
back to careful shopping and will buy what does the job the first time,
with the fewest workarounds.
I've also worked places where the MS site licensing allowed execs
and
architects to use versions of various MS software that would create
files the majority of the companies' employees could not open (at least
not without resorting to piracy). Word, Visio, Excell... there are fun
combinations of things that just would not work, all within MS products
themselves.
Somehow, I'm not surprised. Look at all the lawsuits they've
lost.
8:29 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
Is it Adobe, Win7, or both that you loathe?
It's a double-whammy. I log in, fire up some programs, head over to
desktop #2 and... oh wait. No desktop #2. Grr. I *could* fire up an
app that bolts on multiple desktops, but it's a little wonky. No
right-click and open a terminal? Bummer. Hmm, my tablet isn't
working - time for a little hide-and-seek in the Control Panel.
Then I fire up the behemoth that is InDesign, go make coffee, then
come back and try and find the handful of functions I need that are
expertly hidden all over the UI ;)
I really would like to try Linux. On the computer I built, I even
left
space on the boot drive to install Linux some day. But time is a
factor, I have none. LOL So, those extra steps you don't mind doing
keeps me just further away from the opportunity to try Linux.
Truly, in 2014 installing Linux Mint is a cake walk. No futzing
around with drivers or codecs or anything - if anything it was
*easier* than installing Win7 on this machine. Certainly, more of the
hardware was working "out of the box" in linux than Win7. Tablet
drivers, printer drivers - ugh, no fun.
The fact that you have those scripts and tweaks puts you in a class
of
user apart from the average user today. That's not a bad thing, but
it's also something I lost interest in long, long ago. There are other
things in my life I'd rather do. :-)
And that's why I have the script ;) See here: http://xkcd.com/1205/
I can't stand boring, repetitive tasks. I had to overlay some text
and graphics on 30 or 40 photos the other day, so I figured out a
one-liner to do it. I probably could have done them by hand almost as
quickly, or maybe even faster - but the next batch is going to take
all of 30 seconds. I try and give best possible value to my clients,
so making my operations as efficient as possible directly benefits
them, and keeps me valuable to them - a win-win.
I can't imagine ever needing all the features of InDesign. Heck,
I
don't even know what they are. LOL Even worse, I can't imagine even
wanting to pay for it. <G>
I only truly need it b/c there's absolutely nothing else that can open
and operate on a recent INDD file. But the licensing is almost
reasonable these days. I have the single app for $30 per month, if
memory serves.
Chris
10:47 a.m.
On 8/26/14 5:29 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Ken Springer
<snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> Is it Adobe, Win7, or both that you loathe?
It's a double-whammy. I log in, fire up some programs, head over to
desktop #2 and... oh wait. No desktop #2. Grr. I *could* fire up an
app that bolts on multiple desktops, but it's a little wonky. No
right-click and open a terminal? Bummer. Hmm, my tablet isn't
working - time for a little hide-and-seek in the Control Panel.
Multiple
desktops... I love 'em! And wouldn't have a system without
them now. So, my Windows 7/8 computer will have them eventually.
As for Terminal???? Would rather sit in the electric chair! LOL
Then I fire up the behemoth that is InDesign, go make coffee, then
come back and try and find the handful of functions I need that are
expertly hidden all over the UI ;)
Which is why I don't understand people's
fascination with Photoshop. "I
gotta have it!" They just won't listen when you tell them there are
other programs that are cheaper and easier to use for their handful of
functions.
> I really would like to try Linux. On the computer I built, I
even left
> space on the boot drive to install Linux some day. But time is a
> factor, I have none. LOL So, those extra steps you don't mind doing
> keeps me just further away from the opportunity to try Linux.
Truly, in 2014 installing Linux Mint is a cake walk. No futzing
around with drivers or codecs or anything - if anything it was
*easier* than installing Win7 on this machine. Certainly, more of the
hardware was working "out of the box" in linux than Win7. Tablet
drivers, printer drivers - ugh, no fun.
I've read good things about Mint. Also
about Netrunner. I'd even give
Ubuntu a try, and probably others using a Live CD. And, since this Mac
is getting long in the tooth, maybe I'd learn how to do a multiple boot
here, since Linux supposedly runs very well on older hardware.
> The fact that you have those scripts and tweaks puts you in a
class of
> user apart from the average user today. That's not a bad thing, but
> it's also something I lost interest in long, long ago. There are other
> things in my life I'd rather do. :-)
And that's why I have the script ;) See here: http://xkcd.com/1205/
I can't stand boring, repetitive tasks. I had to overlay some text
and graphics on 30 or 40 photos the other day, so I figured out a
one-liner to do it. I probably could have done them by hand almost as
quickly, or maybe even faster - but the next batch is going to take
all of 30 seconds. I try and give best possible value to my clients,
so making my operations as efficient as possible directly benefits
them, and keeps me valuable to them - a win-win.
Quality workmanship is so rare
these days, yet delivers so many
intangible benefits. Hats off to you.
Being adverse to any kind of coding these days, if I had to do what it
sounds like you're doing I'd probably use a macro recorder. OS X comes
with a powerful recorder, Automator, but that's something else I've
never had time to try.
> I can't imagine ever needing all the features of InDesign.
Heck, I
> don't even know what they are. LOL Even worse, I can't imagine even
> wanting to pay for it. <G>
I only truly need it b/c there's absolutely nothing else that can open
and operate on a recent INDD file. But the licensing is almost
reasonable these days. I have the single app for $30 per month, if
memory serves.
Based on an earlier message, you might need Inkscape to do similar
with
some SVG files.
12:43 p.m.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
Being adverse to any kind of coding these days, if I had to do what
it
sounds like you're doing I'd probably use a macro recorder.
Bah :) That isn't coding - just BASH golf: run [command]. Did it
work? No. Run [command --with-other-options]. Did it work? No, but
it's closer to the hole. Putt until the ball goes in the hole, copy
it down for next time ;) I think a GUI for that would just piss me
off.
As far as your comments on linux: I'm not sure how well Mint would do
on elderly hardware. If you have a beefy graphics card, give it a
whirl (at least the live CD, bearing in mind there's going to be some
lag while it's reading off the disc) . Most Mac hardware is loaded
for bear when it comes to the GPU, though - so you might be OK. There
are other distros that focus on being lightweight, and - and this is
the great thing about open OSes - you could always install something
like Mint, but then change the WM to something really spartan like
fluxbox. But of course that's the fiddling you don't want to do ;)
And not to rant/rave about open source, but you may not know that the
only reason OS X exists at all is that Apple forked one of the BSDs
(openBSD or netBSD - I don't remember).
Chris
PS - at least two members of my local LUG are in California, and
that's got to be at least a thousand miles away. Still a good group
;)
PPS - I'm not usually this active on this list; but your comments on
workflow/toolchain compelled me to respond. I use both open-source
and proprietary programs every day, and format-shifting is second
nature by now, but it's always sticky!
1:49 a.m.
On 8/26/14 9:43 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Ken Springer
<snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> Being adverse to any kind of coding these days, if I had to do what it
> sounds like you're doing I'd probably use a macro recorder.
Bah :) That isn't coding - just BASH golf: run [command]. Did it
work? No. Run [command --with-other-options]. Did it work? No, but
it's closer to the hole. Putt until the ball goes in the hole, copy
it down for next time ;) I think a GUI for that would just piss me
off.
BASH golf??????? I know nothing about golf, and nothing about the BASH
command I see in the X-11 process to get Inkscape to run on this Mac.
But, I can do a pretty good job of bashing things with a sledge
hammer!!!! LOL
As far as your comments on linux: I'm not sure how well Mint
would do
on elderly hardware. If you have a beefy graphics card, give it a
whirl (at least the live CD, bearing in mind there's going to be some
lag while it's reading off the disc) . Most Mac hardware is loaded
for bear when it comes to the GPU, though - so you might be OK. There
are other distros that focus on being lightweight, and - and this is
the great thing about open OSes - you could always install something
like Mint, but then change the WM to something really spartan like
fluxbox. But of course that's the fiddling you don't want to do ;)
And a
lot of what you said is over my head. <G> I've read where Linux
is often the thing to use if you want to extend the life of older
hardware. But every time I tried one of those "specialty" distros via
Live CD that's supposed to be for older hardware, never worked. LOL
But the full version always did.
And not to rant/rave about open source, but you may not know that
the
only reason OS X exists at all is that Apple forked one of the BSDs
(openBSD or netBSD - I don't remember).
I believe it's openBSD, as I've
read OS X is just Jobs Os from the NeXT
systems he built. Always wanted to try that, but I couldn't afford one
then, and they aren't cheap now, either. I just looked on eBay, there's
one for $2400 and one for $2800.
Chris
PS - at least two members of my local LUG are in California, and
that's got to be at least a thousand miles away. Still a good group
;)
How do you deal with members that far away? I'm thinking about meetings
with question and answer sessions and such.
PPS - I'm not usually this active on this list; but your comments
on
workflow/toolchain compelled me to respond. I use both open-source
and proprietary programs every day, and format-shifting is second
nature by now, but it's always sticky!
This is the most I've posted in a
mailing list or newsgroup in months.
And I wouldn't have started this thread if I wasn't trying to help my
friend.
9:25 a.m.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:02:54 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
On 8/26/14 3:53 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:
[clip]
> I find the opposite. I have InDesign 2014 and it's
impossible for
> me to overstate how much I loathe booting into Win7 to use it.
[clip]
These days, though, most people who use computers don't want to have
to do things outside the program they are using. I'd wager most
don't know how, and don't want to have to go through those extra
steps. In fact, my friend is downright pi$$ed it doesn't export jpg,
which arguably is probably the most common file format out there for
graphics. And for her use, and my usual uses, jpg is the better
choice.
Myself, I'll do it, but I don't like doing it anymore. I simply want
to get the job done as fast as I can. By fast, that means
eliminating any other needed steps of other software when I know some
software will do it for me.
I think I've come late to the party, but why would one want to export
to jpg? Is she going to touch it up with Gimp to make it less
vectorish? Is she putting it into some kind of document that can
use .jpg but not .svg or .png? (who does that anymore?)
It's gotten to the point where all my diagrams are .svg now. It's
smaller, it scales better, and every browser made in the past 5 years
can handle it. The .svg format is the preferred ePub image format.
About the only thing I can think of that can't handle .svg is TeX and
friends.
[clip]
I really would like to try Linux. On the computer I built, I even
left space on the boot drive to install Linux some day. But time is
a factor, I have none. LOL So, those extra steps you don't mind
doing keeps me just further away from the opportunity to try Linux.
Ahhhh, nowwww I understand the context of what you were saying about
having one program do it and not having to use multiple programs.
Before I used Linux, I felt the exact same way.
You should try Linux. It changed my whole perspective about computing.
Maybe it will do the same for you. You might develop a love for
Inkscape's --export-plain-svg and --export-pdf and the like. I'd
suggest you join a Linux User Group. If you don't know of one you can
start with mine, GoLUG.org. You don't need to live in Central Florida.
Anyway, I've found the combination of Inkscape and Linux to be powerful
indeed.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
11:28 a.m.
On 8/26/14 6:25 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:02:54 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> On 8/26/14 3:53 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:
[clip]
>> I find the opposite. I have InDesign 2014 and it's impossible for
>> me to overstate how much I loathe booting into Win7 to use it.
[clip]
> These days, though, most people who use computers don't want to have
> to do things outside the program they are using. I'd wager most
> don't know how, and don't want to have to go through those extra
> steps. In fact, my friend is downright pi$$ed it doesn't export jpg,
> which arguably is probably the most common file format out there for
> graphics. And for her use, and my usual uses, jpg is the better
> choice.
>
> Myself, I'll do it, but I don't like doing it anymore. I simply want
> to get the job done as fast as I can. By fast, that means
> eliminating any other needed steps of other software when I know some
> software will do it for me.
I think I've come late to the party, but why would one want to export
to jpg? Is she going to touch it up with Gimp to make it less
vectorish? Is she putting it into some kind of document that can
use .jpg but not .svg or .png? (who does that anymore?)
At the bottom line, it has
to be compatible with the software other
users in the company have. In this case MS Office 2010, which doesn't
understand .svg. Yesterday, she couldn't get .png to work but today it
worked fine. I suspect the frustration level was so high, she made some
kind of mistake. So .png is going to work too.
You always should consider the people who receive your file may not be
using the latest and greatest software from anybody. JPG has been
around longer than SVG and PNG, so the likelihood of problems with JPGs
is less.
As I wrote in another post, the only real advantage we found of PNG over
JPG is lossless file format and transparency. Neither of which is a
consideration in this case. And there other ancillary issues regarding
the file size, such as internet speed. Believe it or not, for the
company she works for, her connection to the company's computers just 7
miles away goes halfway around the world to Paris, France.
Unbelievable, isn't it?
I really pushed her to use a scalable file format so she could resize as
necessary. But when the import issue came up with MS Publisher, it's
Plan B, a bitmapped export became the answer. She's also used some
Inkscape's features the don't convert, either.
On a personal level, we both detest wasting hard drive space for
something that gives us nothing in return.
It's gotten to the point where all my diagrams are .svg now.
It's
smaller, it scales better, and every browser made in the past 5 years
can handle it. The .svg format is the preferred ePub image format.
About the only thing I can think of that can't handle .svg is TeX and
friends.
I've got a project, moving glacially slow, that needs diagrams. Giving
Dia List a try for that. Years ago I used SmartDraw, but the diagram
needs are simple so SmartDraw is overkill.
[clip]
> I really would like to try Linux. On the computer I built, I even
> left space on the boot drive to install Linux some day. But time is
> a factor, I have none. LOL So, those extra steps you don't mind
> doing keeps me just further away from the opportunity to try Linux.
Ahhhh, nowwww I understand the context of what you were saying about
having one program do it and not having to use multiple programs.
Before I used Linux, I felt the exact same way.
But that won't help with my
time issue. LOL
You should try Linux. It changed my whole perspective about
computing.
Maybe it will do the same for you. You might develop a love for
Inkscape's --export-plain-svg and --export-pdf and the like. I'd
suggest you join a Linux User Group. If you don't know of one you can
start with mine, GoLUG.org. You don't need to live in Central Florida.
There
used to be one nearby, but about 5 months after I joined, it went
away. :-(
<snip>
10:06 a.m.
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 17:02 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
jpg is the better choice.
No.
http://www.rastertovector.com/r2v-articles/why-jpeg-files-are-bad-for-ras...
Martin,
10:25 a.m.
On 8/26/14 7:06 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 17:02 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:
> jpg is the better choice.
No.
http://www.rastertovector.com/r2v-articles/why-jpeg-files-are-bad-for-ras...
Whoa, Martin, we've gotten our wires crossed here somewhere. Vectorizing
a JPG or any other raster graphic is the last thing I would do. I
learned that so many years ago. LOL Depending on the content of the
graphic, some autotracers can do a credible job. There's a section of
doing this with Inkscape in the manual. I've not had a reason to test
it, though.
I meant, but it was obviously unclear, that JPG was the better choice
for us over PNG. Wondering about the supposed advantages of PNG over
JPG we did some quick searching, and other than being a lossless file
format, and supporting transparency, was the only major advantages. The
article said, that under the right circumstances, JPG would actually
produce a superior result.
A lossless file format is virtually of no use for us. Transparency,
maybe. In that case, if a PNG didn't exist, it's easily created with
conversion routines.
Interesting... Thunderbird failed to thread your message properly, took
me a bit to figure out what you'd snipped. LOL
6:43 p.m.
A lossless file format is virtually of no use for us. Transparency,
maybe. In that case, if a PNG didn't exist, it's easily created with
conversion routines.
No, it isn't easy to create a transparent PNG from a JPEG. Due to
anti-aliasing you can't just remove the white background from an image
without (usually) leaving intermediate pixels at the edges of your objects,
producing a white outline if you place the transparent image on a non-white
background. The only way to reliably get a transparent image is to export
it as such from the original source application directly to a format that
supports alpha transparency - which pretty much means PNG these days.
It's trivial to flatten a transparent PNG to produce a JPEG or other format
using another application, if necessary. As such I see no particular reason
why Inkscape needs a JPEG export option. These days if an application that
is supposed to handle raster images can't load a PNG directly I would
consider it to be broken. That goes doubly for a DTP program - what happens
when you want a vector logo, exported as a bitmap, to be placed over
another image? Good luck sorting that one out with a format that doesn't
support transparency.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but I didn't want you left with the impression
that it's easy to convert a JPEG to a transparent PNG, only to discover
it's not once it's too late to do anything about it.
Mark
10:36 p.m.
On 8/28/14 3:43 AM, Mark Crutch wrote:
A lossless file format is virtually of no use for us. Transparency,
maybe. In that case, if a PNG didn't exist, it's easily created with
conversion routines.
No, it isn't easy to create a transparent PNG from a JPEG. Due to
anti-aliasing you can't just remove the white background from an image
without (usually) leaving intermediate pixels at the edges of your
objects, producing a white outline if you place the transparent image
on a non-white background. The only way to reliably get a transparent
image is to export it as such from the original source application
directly to a format that supports alpha transparency - which pretty
much means PNG these days.
Ah, yes, once again, not quite enough information from
me. <G> In our
case, we are just dealing with the vector objects. And want the jpgs
instead of PNG to save space on the hard drive, and be able to upload to
the company's servers, 7-8 miles away, by way of Paris.
But you are correct when dealing with photos and a jpg photo up front.
I just had that issue, but at the end it wasn't a problem. The image was
far larger than needed, so created the transparent part first. Then
resized, and the residual stuff disappeared. Even if there are a couple
of stray pixels, the images are for PowerPoint presentations, so no one
will have a magnifying glass to find them. LOL
It's trivial to flatten a transparent PNG to produce a JPEG or
other
format using another application, if necessary. As such I see no
particular reason why Inkscape needs a JPEG export option. These days
if an application that is supposed to handle raster images can't load
a PNG directly I would consider it to be broken. That goes doubly for
a DTP program - what happens when you want a vector logo, exported as
a bitmap, to be placed over another image? Good luck sorting that one
out with a format that doesn't support transparency.
No, Inkscape doesn't
have to. But, if the user is like me, and wants to
maximize their time to be efficient, a program that does the same thing
(vector drawing) but does export JPG, that program saves me time. That
time savings seems to be something that is eluding some people.
But don't forget to consider, the users at the other end may be using
older systems and older software. Not everyone can afford, or sees any
need, to have the latest and greatest of everything. When talking about
any computer related topic, you should always consider the possibility
someone in the group simply may not have the newer versions of X. And
you have to work to that level.
As I noted in another message, my friend was apparently doing something
wrong, because PNG does work in Office 2010. As for the software being
broken if a PNG doesn't work directly, if the program is supposed to
work but doesn't, it's possibly broken. You need to try other PNG
files, perhaps the one you're working with is corrupt. But, if the
program isn't supposed to support PNG, the program isn't broken, it
simply doesn't have the feature you want. Just like I want Inkscape to
export to JPG. That doesn't make Inkscape broken, it just doesn't do
what I want/look for. Like a car that only has AM radio, but you want
FM also.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but I didn't want you left with
the
impression that it's easy to convert a JPEG to a transparent PNG, only
to discover it's not once it's too late to do anything about it.
I
didn't consider it harsh at all, since it's not new information to
me. :-)
12:44 a.m.
It's trivial to flatten a transparent PNG to produce a JPEG or
other
format using another application, if necessary. As such I see no particular
reason why Inkscape needs a JPEG export option. These days if an
application that is supposed to handle raster images can't load a PNG
directly I would consider it to be broken. That goes doubly for a DTP
program - what happens when you want a vector logo, exported as a bitmap,
to be placed over another image? Good luck sorting that one out with a
format that doesn't support transparency.
No, Inkscape doesn't have to. But, if the user is like me, and wants to
maximize their time to be efficient, a program that does the same thing
(vector drawing) but does export JPG, that program saves me time. That
time savings seems to be something that is eluding some people.
You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD files.
Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric formats. Should
Inkscape support them all, or would it be better to export one or two
formats and allow the user to use another application to convert to
whatever they want?
But don't forget to consider, the users at the other end may be using older
systems and older software. Not everyone can afford, or sees any
need, to
have the latest and greatest of everything. When talking about any
computer related topic, you should always consider the possibility someone
in the group simply may not have the newer versions of X. And you have to
work to that level.
Where do you draw the line, though? How old should we cater for. What if
someone's still using software that pre-dates JPEG? Hmmm... perhaps
Inkscape should just export in one or two open formats that can easily be
converted to others - even pre-JPEG ones - using other software.
But, if the program isn't supposed to support PNG, the program
isn't
broken, it simply doesn't have the feature you want. Just like I want
Inkscape to export to JPG. That doesn't make Inkscape broken, it just
doesn't do what I want/look for. Like a car that only has AM radio, but
you want FM also.
If a DTP program doesn't support a bitmap format with alpha channels then I
*do* consider it broken as it prevents you from doing a lot of basic
things, like putting a logo over an image. It doesn't have to be PNG, but
in practice that's pretty much the only widespread open format that does
the job.
Inkscape not exporting JPEG doesn't prevent you doing anything, it just
adds an extra external step if you absolutely must have a JPEG.
Therefore I consider one case to be broken, and the other not. One stops
you performing the basic tasks the program is there for, the other doesn't.
Inkscape exports in the only widely used open raster format that supports
alpha transparency and saves losslessly; from that high-fidelity original
it's down to the user to accept the trade-offs of converting to something
else, and to pick their preferred tool for doing so.
Mark
2:45 a.m.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:44:20PM +0100, Mark Crutch wrote:
Inkscape not exporting JPEG doesn't prevent you doing anything, it just
adds an extra external step if you absolutely must have a JPEG.
Therefore I consider one case to be broken, and the other not. One stops
you performing the basic tasks the program is there for, the other doesn't.
Inkscape exports in the only widely used open raster format that supports
alpha transparency and saves losslessly; from that high-fidelity original
it's down to the user to accept the trade-offs of converting to something
else, and to pick their preferred tool for doing so.
The choice here is between having an application that tries to do everything
and a set of tools that can be combined in a variety of different ways.
The UNIX philosophy is the latter.
-- hendrik
3:13 a.m.
On 8/28/14 9:44 AM, Mark Crutch wrote:
> It's trivial to flatten a transparent PNG to produce a JPEG or
> other format using another application, if necessary. As such I
> see no particular reason why Inkscape needs a JPEG export option.
> These days if an application that is supposed to handle raster
> images can't load a PNG directly I would consider it to be
> broken. That goes doubly for a DTP program - what happens when
> you want a vector logo, exported as a bitmap, to be placed over
> another image? Good luck sorting that one out with a format that
> doesn't support transparency.
No, Inkscape doesn't have to. But, if the user is like me, and
wants to maximize their time to be efficient, a program that does
the same thing (vector drawing) but does export JPG, that program
saves me time. That time savings seems to be something that is
eluding some people.
You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD
files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric formats.
Should Inkscape support them all, or would it be better to export one
or two formats and allow the user to use another application to
convert to whatever they want?
You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another
application to do the
conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not spend
the extra time.
But don't forget to consider, the users at the other end may be
using older systems and older software. Not everyone can afford,
or sees any need, to have the latest and greatest of everything.
When talking about any computer related topic, you should always
consider the possibility someone in the group simply may not have
the newer versions of X. And you have to work to that level.
Where do you draw the line, though? How old should we cater for. What
if someone's still using software that pre-dates JPEG? Hmmm... perhaps
Inkscape should just export in one or two open formats that can easily
be converted to others - even pre-JPEG ones - using other software.
Drawing the
line is always a tough question? If it were my call, I'd
look at what's being used in the way of hardware/operating systems.
With the plethora of XP users that are still out there, and seemingly in
no hurry to upgrade, if the file format was available when XP came out,
that's where I'd draw the line. Nothing directly supported for older
systems.
But now you risk pi$$ing off your users who have an unknown number of
files they've created, may want to use again, but can't? I think a
classy organization would provide a separate program to convert the
older files to a newer file so the user still has access to his/her
older files. This may be easier for word processors than graphics software.
But, if the program isn't supposed to support PNG, the program
isn't broken, it simply doesn't have the feature you want. Just
like I want Inkscape to export to JPG. That doesn't make Inkscape
broken, it just doesn't do what I want/look for. Like a car that
only has AM radio, but you want FM also.
If a DTP program doesn't support a bitmap format with alpha channels
then I *do* consider it broken as it prevents you from doing a lot of
basic things, like putting a logo over an image. It doesn't have to be
PNG, but in practice that's pretty much the only widespread open
format that does the job.
We sure define the word "broken" differently.
<G>
Bedda define the "basics" then. Because, before there was transparency,
"basics" wouldn't include that ability.
Inkscape not exporting JPEG doesn't prevent you doing anything,
it
just adds an extra external step if you absolutely must have a JPEG.
Therefore I consider one case to be broken, and the other not. One
stops you performing the basic tasks the program is there for, the
other doesn't. Inkscape exports in the only widely used open raster
format that supports alpha transparency and saves losslessly; from
that high-fidelity original it's down to the user to accept the
trade-offs of converting to something else, and to pick their
preferred tool for doing so.
And if the option to export to JPG or other format
were in Inkscape,
it's still the user's option to accept something less.
4:52 a.m.
You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD files.
Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric formats. Should
Inkscape support them all, or would it be better to export one or two
formats and allow the user to use another application to convert to
whatever they want?
You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do the
conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not spend the
extra time.
Why do you think JPG is superior to PNG for export?
5:17 a.m.
On 8/28/14 1:52 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:
> You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD
> files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric
> formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or would it be better
> to export one or two formats and allow the user to use another
> application to convert to whatever they want?
You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do
the conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend,
not spend the extra time.
Why do you think JPG is superior to PNG for export?
It's not a question of
which one is superior. That will get you into an
endless argument. LOL
It's a question of which format, of any kind, best suits the needs of
the project. Nothing more, nothing less. For the project at hand, we
don't need transparency, and we don't need a file as large as PNG files
can be. Plus, others involved in the company, may or may not be able to
handle the resulting image if it's a PNG. Not to mention others may
never have heard of PNG. :-)
My friend's supervisor does everything in MS Publisher. Get the
picture? LOL
9:22 a.m.
Hi! I don't want this to seem combative - I'm genuinely curious and mean
all this in the most friendly of ways possible :)
You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD files.
> Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric formats.
Should
> Inkscape support them all, or would it be better to export one or two
> formats and allow the user to use another application to convert to
> whatever they want?
>
> You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do the
> conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not spend the
> extra time.
>
Why do you think JPG is superior to PNG for export?
It's not a question of which one is superior. That will get you into an
endless argument. LOL
... heheh
It's a question of which format, of any kind, best suits the
needs of the
project. Nothing more, nothing less. For the project at hand, we don't
need transparency, and we don't need a file as large as PNG files can be.
Wait, "as large as PNG"? How large is the file you are exporting? I've had
banner sized images (about 4m) and it ended up only being ~10MB with PNG..?
(Granted it was kind of simple but still)
Plus, others involved in the company, may or may not be able to
handle the
resulting image if it's a PNG. Not to mention others may never have heard
of PNG. :-)
Windows has been able to view PNG images since XP...?
My friend's supervisor does everything in MS Publisher. Get the
picture? LOL
What version of publisher is it? Publisher >= version 2000 can import PNG
graphics: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/198264 (Publisher 2000 was
released in 1999)
Actually, what software are you using to import the image? I am very
surprised that JPG is the only format it can import.
In any case, I think it comes down to this: Inkscape exports to PNG because
something like 98% of all graphics software since 2000 can use PNG and
import/export to PNG easily.
Secondly, I think implementing JPG export is unnecessary because it adds
complexity to the export functionality of Inkscape - there are other tools
out there that can already do a fantastic job of compressing JPG images -
why does Inkscape need to duplicate functionality? :)
If it's size that matters - then JPG compression has a lot of parameters
you can tweak to get a better compression ratio - I would rather do that in
GIMP or some other software that has proven it can do it very well than do
it in Inkscape.
:)
On a side note, it looks like EPS has been supported by publisher since
Publisher version 1: (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/76385) unfortunately
that link says nothing of PNG :(
10:31 a.m.
On 8/28/14 6:22 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:
Hi! I don't want this to seem combative - I'm genuinely
curious and
mean all this in the most friendly of ways possible :)
I'm not taking it in
that way at all! LOL And I'm sitting here
shaking my head and saying to myself "What is it about these guys/gals
that don't understand that time and hard drive space is important to
some people?" LMAO
Besides, with luck, conversations like these actually can turn into
learning experiences, where we discover new perspectives, information,
etc. And I like them, to be honest. :-)
>> You want JPEG export. I know others that would like
>> Photoshop PSD files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or
>> other esoteric formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or
>> would it be better to export one or two formats and allow
>> the user to use another application to convert to whatever
>> they want?
> You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to
> do the conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I
> spend, not spend the extra time.
>
>
> Why do you think JPG is superior to PNG for export?
It's not a question of which one is superior. That will get you
into an endless argument. LOL
... heheh
It's a question of which format, of any kind, best suits the needs
of the project. Nothing more, nothing less. For the project at
hand, we don't need transparency, and we don't need a file as
large as PNG files can be.
Wait, "as large as PNG"? How large is the file you are exporting?
I've had banner sized images (about 4m) and it ended up only being
~10MB with PNG..? (Granted it was kind of simple but still)
Back up a bit, it's
not my file! LOL It's my friend that's doing
all this. She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists. :-) Note I said
as "large as PNG files can be". Initially this all came about because
she couldn't make PNG work, but it appears she was doing something wrong
somewhere, and PNG will work for her.
I honestly don't know the file size difference at the moment. It is a
banner type graphic, but used for various purposes, possibly banners and
window displays. But, she used some special effect/filter to some
letters which has to increase the size of the resulting file when
rasterized. I can't remember which one, but it's so cool. She works
for a gold mine (for real!) and she made the letters in the company logo
look somewhat 3D in gold. There's a fade type effect from white to the
gold look in the fill of the letters. And now she's experimenting with
applying the same effect to other letters, so the resulting file will be
even larger.
At least since OS X 10.5 Leopard the default screenshot format has been
PNG. Now... If all I do with screenshots is stick them in emails,
maybe a document, or send to someone via Skype, why in H*** do I want to
waste time and bandwidth sending something with extra features not
needed? And what about people with slow internet connections? Do you
really think they appreciate sitting on their thumbs waiting for the web
page to load PNGs when it would render in their browser as JPGs much
faster? And if the viewer wants to download the picture, link it to the
PNG file.
H***, one of my neighbors just upgraded from dial up a few months ago.
So I went online and found out how to change the default screenshot file
from PNG to JPG. Now my screenshots will be half to 2/3 rds the size of
the PNG equivalent.
Plus, others involved in the company, may or may not be able to
handle the resulting image if it's a PNG. Not to mention others
may never have heard of PNG. :-)
Windows has been able to view PNG images since XP...?
I honestly don't know,
but it's not so much the OS as the software the
user is using you should consider.
My friend's supervisor does everything in MS Publisher. Get the
picture? LOL
What version of publisher is it? Publisher >= version 2000 can import
PNG graphics: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/198264 (Publisher 2000
was released in 1999)
It's 2010, I think I mentioned that in another message.
As I said, the
problem is apparently OE... Operator Error. My Publisher comment was
snide, I know there's one bug in the 2007 version that's in the version
produced for Windows for Workgroups. when MS sold it as a standalone
program. Plus, according to my friend, it's a POS for ease of use
compared to Serif's PagePlus X6. FYI, current version is X8.
Actually, what software are you using to import the image? I am very
surprised that JPG is the only format it can import.
In the end, we'll have no
idea what software will be used by others in
her company to view the finished items. And the logo will likely end up
on the company servers for anyone to use. I wouldn't be surprised if it
was used, with permission, by people outside the company. Ya gotta plan
for the lowest common denominator if you don't want to pi$$ people
off. <G>
In any case, I think it comes down to this: Inkscape exports to PNG
because something like 98% of all graphics software since 2000 can use
PNG and import/export to PNG easily.
Secondly, I think implementing JPG export is unnecessary because it
adds complexity to the export functionality of Inkscape - there are
other tools out there that can already do a fantastic job of
compressing JPG images - why does Inkscape need to duplicate
functionality? :)
I'd be willing to bet you and most reading this thread have
hefty
systems when it comes to power, and fast internet connections. So size
of the file and time to upload/download probably doesn't affect you that
much. But being a user who does not have those things, it is important
to me. Both the size of the file, and the time involved in all the steps.
If it's size that matters - then JPG compression has a lot of
parameters you can tweak to get a better compression ratio - I would
rather do that in GIMP or some other software that has proven it can
do it very well than do it in Inkscape.
Lots of options for JPG. And the article
my friend found said that with
the right source material, a JPG could produce a superior product to
PNG. Now, that doesn't make sense to me, it was just stated in the article.
:)
On a side note, it looks like EPS has been supported by publisher
since Publisher version 1: (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/76385)
unfortunately that link says nothing of PNG :(
EPS has been around for a long time.
Even some software on my 16/32 bit
Atari computers would support EPS. I think I even have a CD of EPS
clipart around here someplace.
Been Skyping with my friend, the effect she used on the letters was
glowing metal.
10:48 a.m.
Fair enough :) Thanks for answering my questions!
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
On 8/28/14 6:22 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:
Hi! I don't want this to seem combative - I'm genuinely curious and mean
all this in the most friendly of ways possible :)
I'm not taking it in that way at all! LOL And I'm sitting here shaking
my head and saying to myself "What is it about these guys/gals that don't
understand that time and hard drive space is important to some people?"
LMAO
Besides, with luck, conversations like these actually can turn into
learning experiences, where we discover new perspectives, information,
etc. And I like them, to be honest. :-)
You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD
>> files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric formats. Should
>> Inkscape support them all, or would it be better to export one or two
>> formats and allow the user to use another application to convert to
>> whatever they want?
>>
>> You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do the
>> conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not spend the
>> extra time.
>>
>
> Why do you think JPG is superior to PNG for export?
>
> It's not a question of which one is superior. That will get you into
> an endless argument. LOL
>
... heheh
> It's a question of which format, of any kind, best suits the needs of
> the project. Nothing more, nothing less. For the project at hand, we
> don't need transparency, and we don't need a file as large as PNG files can
> be.
>
Wait, "as large as PNG"? How large is the file you are exporting? I've
had banner sized images (about 4m) and it ended up only being ~10MB with
PNG..? (Granted it was kind of simple but still)
Back up a bit, it's not my file! LOL It's my friend that's doing all
this. She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists. :-) Note I said as
"large as PNG files can be". Initially this all came about because she
couldn't make PNG work, but it appears she was doing something wrong
somewhere, and PNG will work for her.
I honestly don't know the file size difference at the moment. It is a
banner type graphic, but used for various purposes, possibly banners and
window displays. But, she used some special effect/filter to some letters
which has to increase the size of the resulting file when rasterized. I
can't remember which one, but it's so cool. She works for a gold mine (for
real!) and she made the letters in the company logo look somewhat 3D in
gold. There's a fade type effect from white to the gold look in the fill
of the letters. And now she's experimenting with applying the same effect
to other letters, so the resulting file will be even larger.
At least since OS X 10.5 Leopard the default screenshot format has been
PNG. Now... If all I do with screenshots is stick them in emails, maybe
a document, or send to someone via Skype, why in H*** do I want to waste
time and bandwidth sending something with extra features not needed? And
what about people with slow internet connections? Do you really think they
appreciate sitting on their thumbs waiting for the web page to load PNGs
when it would render in their browser as JPGs much faster? And if the
viewer wants to download the picture, link it to the PNG file.
H***, one of my neighbors just upgraded from dial up a few months ago.
So I went online and found out how to change the default screenshot file
from PNG to JPG. Now my screenshots will be half to 2/3 rds the size of
the PNG equivalent.
Plus, others involved in the company, may or may not be able to handle
> the resulting image if it's a PNG. Not to mention others may never have
> heard of PNG. :-)
>
Windows has been able to view PNG images since XP...?
I honestly don't know, but it's not so much the OS as the software the
user is using you should consider.
My friend's supervisor does everything in MS Publisher. Get the
> picture? LOL
>
What version of publisher is it? Publisher >= version 2000 can import
PNG graphics: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/198264 (Publisher 2000 was
released in 1999)
It's 2010, I think I mentioned that in another message. As I said, the
problem is apparently OE... Operator Error. My Publisher comment was
snide, I know there's one bug in the 2007 version that's in the version
produced for Windows for Workgroups. when MS sold it as a standalone
program. Plus, according to my friend, it's a POS for ease of use compared
to Serif's PagePlus X6. FYI, current version is X8.
Actually, what software are you using to import the image? I am very
surprised that JPG is the only format it can import.
In the end, we'll have no idea what software will be used by others in her
company to view the finished items. And the logo will likely end up on the
company servers for anyone to use. I wouldn't be surprised if it was used,
with permission, by people outside the company. Ya gotta plan for the
lowest common denominator if you don't want to pi$$ people off. <G>
In any case, I think it comes down to this: Inkscape exports to PNG
because something like 98% of all graphics software since 2000 can use PNG
and import/export to PNG easily.
Secondly, I think implementing JPG export is unnecessary because it adds
complexity to the export functionality of Inkscape - there are other tools
out there that can already do a fantastic job of compressing JPG images -
why does Inkscape need to duplicate functionality? :)
I'd be willing to bet you and most reading this thread have hefty systems
when it comes to power, and fast internet connections. So size of the file
and time to upload/download probably doesn't affect you that much. But
being a user who does not have those things, it is important to me. Both
the size of the file, and the time involved in all the steps.
If it's size that matters - then JPG compression has a lot of parameters
you can tweak to get a better compression ratio - I would rather do that in
GIMP or some other software that has proven it can do it very well than do
it in Inkscape.
Lots of options for JPG. And the article my friend found said that with
the right source material, a JPG could produce a superior product to PNG.
Now, that doesn't make sense to me, it was just stated in the article.
:)
On a side note, it looks like EPS has been supported by publisher since
Publisher version 1: (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/76385)
unfortunately that link says nothing of PNG :(
EPS has been around for a long time. Even some software on my 16/32 bit
Atari computers would support EPS. I think I even have a CD of EPS clipart
around here someplace.
Been Skyping with my friend, the effect she used on the letters was
glowing metal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
10:58 a.m.
You're welcome.
On 8/28/14 7:48 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:
Fair enough :) Thanks for answering my questions!
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...
<mailto:snowshed1@...3003...>> wrote:
On 8/28/14 6:22 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:
> Hi! I don't want this to seem combative - I'm genuinely curious
> and mean all this in the most friendly of ways possible :)
I'm not taking it in that way at all! LOL And I'm sitting here
shaking my head and saying to myself "What is it about these
guys/gals that don't understand that time and hard drive space is
important to some people?" LMAO
Besides, with luck, conversations like these actually can turn
into learning experiences, where we discover new perspectives,
information, etc. And I like them, to be honest. :-)
>
>>> You want JPEG export. I know others that would like
>>> Photoshop PSD files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP
>>> or other esoteric formats. Should Inkscape support them
>>> all, or would it be better to export one or two formats
>>> and allow the user to use another application to
>>> convert to whatever they want?
>> You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application
>> to do the conversion takes time. I want to minimize the
>> time I spend, not spend the extra time.
>>
>>
>> Why do you think JPG is superior to PNG for export?
> It's not a question of which one is superior. That will get
> you into an endless argument. LOL
>
>
> ... heheh
>
> It's a question of which format, of any kind, best suits the
> needs of the project. Nothing more, nothing less. For the
> project at hand, we don't need transparency, and we don't
> need a file as large as PNG files can be.
>
>
> Wait, "as large as PNG"? How large is the file you are exporting?
> I've had banner sized images (about 4m) and it ended up only
> being ~10MB with PNG..? (Granted it was kind of simple but still)
Back up a bit, it's not my file! LOL It's my friend that's
doing all this. She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists.
:-) Note I said as "large as PNG files can be". Initially this
all came about because she couldn't make PNG work, but it appears
she was doing something wrong somewhere, and PNG will work for her.
I honestly don't know the file size difference at the moment. It
is a banner type graphic, but used for various purposes, possibly
banners and window displays. But, she used some special
effect/filter to some letters which has to increase the size of
the resulting file when rasterized. I can't remember which one,
but it's so cool. She works for a gold mine (for real!) and she
made the letters in the company logo look somewhat 3D in gold.
There's a fade type effect from white to the gold look in the fill
of the letters. And now she's experimenting with applying the
same effect to other letters, so the resulting file will be even
larger.
At least since OS X 10.5 Leopard the default screenshot format has
been PNG. Now... If all I do with screenshots is stick them in
emails, maybe a document, or send to someone via Skype, why in
H*** do I want to waste time and bandwidth sending something with
extra features not needed? And what about people with slow
internet connections? Do you really think they appreciate sitting
on their thumbs waiting for the web page to load PNGs when it
would render in their browser as JPGs much faster? And if the
viewer wants to download the picture, link it to the PNG file.
H***, one of my neighbors just upgraded from dial up a few months ago.
So I went online and found out how to change the default
screenshot file from PNG to JPG. Now my screenshots will be half
to 2/3 rds the size of the PNG equivalent.
>
> Plus, others involved in the company, may or may not be able
> to handle the resulting image if it's a PNG. Not to mention
> others may never have heard of PNG. :-)
>
>
> Windows has been able to view PNG images since XP...?
I honestly don't know, but it's not so much the OS as the software
the user is using you should consider.
>
> My friend's supervisor does everything in MS Publisher. Get
> the picture? LOL
>
>
> What version of publisher is it? Publisher >= version 2000 can
> import PNG graphics: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/198264
> (Publisher 2000 was released in 1999)
It's 2010, I think I mentioned that in another message. As I said,
the problem is apparently OE... Operator Error. My Publisher
comment was snide, I know there's one bug in the 2007 version
that's in the version produced for Windows for Workgroups. when MS
sold it as a standalone program. Plus, according to my friend,
it's a POS for ease of use compared to Serif's PagePlus X6. FYI,
current version is X8.
> Actually, what software are you using to import the image? I am
> very surprised that JPG is the only format it can import.
In the end, we'll have no idea what software will be used by
others in her company to view the finished items. And the logo
will likely end up on the company servers for anyone to use. I
wouldn't be surprised if it was used, with permission, by people
outside the company. Ya gotta plan for the lowest common
denominator if you don't want to pi$$ people off. <G>
> In any case, I think it comes down to this: Inkscape exports to
> PNG because something like 98% of all graphics software since
> 2000 can use PNG and import/export to PNG easily.
> Secondly, I think implementing JPG export is unnecessary because
> it adds complexity to the export functionality of Inkscape -
> there are other tools out there that can already do a fantastic
> job of compressing JPG images - why does Inkscape need to
> duplicate functionality? :)
I'd be willing to bet you and most reading this thread have hefty
systems when it comes to power, and fast internet connections. So
size of the file and time to upload/download probably doesn't
affect you that much. But being a user who does not have those
things, it is important to me. Both the size of the file, and the
time involved in all the steps.
> If it's size that matters - then JPG compression has a lot of
> parameters you can tweak to get a better compression ratio - I
> would rather do that in GIMP or some other software that has
> proven it can do it very well than do it in Inkscape.
Lots of options for JPG. And the article my friend found said
that with the right source material, a JPG could produce a
superior product to PNG. Now, that doesn't make sense to me, it
was just stated in the article.
> :)
>
> On a side note, it looks like EPS has been supported by publisher
> since Publisher version 1:
> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/76385) unfortunately that link
> says nothing of PNG :(
EPS has been around for a long time. Even some software on my
16/32 bit Atari computers would support EPS. I think I even have
a CD of EPS clipart around here someplace.
Been Skyping with my friend, the effect she used on the letters
was glowing metal.
7:11 p.m.
Not at all, Martin. :-)
A tad disappointed, maybe, but I've enjoyed the discussion, as I
mentioned to Chris Tooley. But a lot of things with computers
disappoint me, which is why I often keep looking for something that
doesn't. :-)
Ken
On 8/28/14 11:42 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
> Ya gotta plan for the lowest common denominator if you don't
want to
> pi$$ people off.
Do you feel pissed off Ken?
Martin,
11:39 p.m.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:31:27 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
Back up a bit, it's not my file! LOL It's my friend
that's doing
all this. She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists. :-) Note I
said as "large as PNG files can be". Initially this all came about
because she couldn't make PNG work, but it appears she was doing
something wrong somewhere, and PNG will work for her.
From my perspective, your friend's not a candidate for Inkscape,
or any
free software: Especially any Linux/BSD/POSIX software. From what I've
heard in the thread, she believes her software should give her exactly
what she wants, without her having to adapt to it. For a million
different reasons, that's not how free software works: It's kinda sorta
how commercial software works, or is supposed to work, but it's not
how free software works. Trying to evangelize Inkscape or free software
in general to a person with her belief system will be frustrating as
hell, unless her belief system changes.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
12:44 a.m.
On 8/29/14 8:39 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:31:27 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> Back up a bit, it's not my file! LOL It's my friend that's doing
> all this. She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists. :-) Note I
> said as "large as PNG files can be". Initially this all came about
> because she couldn't make PNG work, but it appears she was doing
> something wrong somewhere, and PNG will work for her.
>From my perspective, your friend's not a candidate for Inkscape, or any
free software: Especially any Linux/BSD/POSIX software. From what I've
heard in the thread, she believes her software should give her exactly
what she wants, without her having to adapt to it. For a million
different reasons, that's not how free software works: It's kinda sorta
how commercial software works, or is supposed to work, but it's not
how free software works. Trying to evangelize Inkscape or free software
in general to a person with her belief system will be frustrating as
hell, unless her belief system changes.
But, she's more broke than I am!
LOL
But to be fair, the dialog in Inkscape leads you to believe formats
other than PNG should be available. Someone even mentioned changing the
dialog's text, which is probably the best idea if nothing but PNG is
ever going to be offered. Even I expected Inkscape to do something
other than PNG based on the export process.
Not that she won't adapt, but the export dialog is misleading.
She's always fighting with Open Office too, more because things don't
work. With the new projects in her job, she found out that MS Word
export in OO isn't all that good. I've tried a couple free office
suites touting Word compatibility and... none were reliable.
1:23 a.m.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:44:05 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
On 8/29/14 8:39 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:31:27 -0600
> Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
>
>
>> Back up a bit, it's not my file! LOL It's my friend that's
>> doing all this. She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists. :-)
>> Note I said as "large as PNG files can be". Initially this all
>> came about because she couldn't make PNG work, but it appears she
>> was doing something wrong somewhere, and PNG will work for her.
> >From my perspective, your friend's not a candidate for Inkscape,
> >or any
> free software: Especially any Linux/BSD/POSIX software. From
what
> I've heard in the thread, she believes her software should give her
> exactly what she wants, without her having to adapt to it. For a
> million different reasons, that's not how free software works: It's
> kinda sorta how commercial software works, or is supposed to work,
> but it's not how free software works. Trying to evangelize Inkscape
> or free software in general to a person with her belief system will
> be frustrating as hell, unless her belief system changes.
But, she's more broke than I am! LOL
Sounds to me like she'd better either get a better job, or change her
belief system. It sounds like, with her financial situation and her
belief system, she's in for a world of hurt.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
2:09 a.m.
On 8/29/14 10:23 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:44:05 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> On 8/29/14 8:39 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:31:27 -0600
>> Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Back up a bit, it's not my file! LOL It's my friend that's
>>> doing all this. She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists. :-)
>>> Note I said as "large as PNG files can be". Initially this all
>>> came about because she couldn't make PNG work, but it appears she
>>> was doing something wrong somewhere, and PNG will work for her.
>> >From my perspective, your friend's not a candidate for Inkscape,
>>> or any
>> free software: Especially any Linux/BSD/POSIX software. From what
>> I've heard in the thread, she believes her software should give her
>> exactly what she wants, without her having to adapt to it. For a
>> million different reasons, that's not how free software works: It's
>> kinda sorta how commercial software works, or is supposed to work,
>> but it's not how free software works. Trying to evangelize Inkscape
>> or free software in general to a person with her belief system will
>> be frustrating as hell, unless her belief system changes.
> But, she's more broke than I am! LOL
Sounds to me like she'd better either get a better job, or change her
belief system. It sounds like, with her financial situation and her
belief system, she's in for a world of hurt.
It's not that she isn't
looking. :-( Too few full time jobs in the
US. Despite what the federal government says with all their stats of
job creation and such, when you go look for a decent paying job, they
just aren't there. :-( Most of those newly created jobs are paying far
less than the jobs that were lost.
The job she has now is a decent paying job. But, like many employers,
it's just part time, and they make sure she works less than 30 hrs. a
week so they don't have to pay healthcare and other bennies. But by law
she has to pay for healthcare. Double whammy for huge numbers of
citizens. Crappy jobs and you have to pay for health care, where costs
continue to rise despite the promise of the President.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
"All progress depends upon the unreasonable person."
George Bernard Shaw
"Cheap prices make for cheap goods; cheap goods make for
cheap men; and cheap men make for a cheap country!"
President William McKinley
http://www.greeleynet.com/~wordwork/airpage.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
11:24 a.m.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:13:02 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do the
conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not
spend the extra time.
Hi Ken,
It's about 15 seconds:
convert myfile.png myfile.jpg; rm myfile.png
I think there's an ImageMagic toolset, which includes convert, for
Windows too. It's 15 seconds.
Let's say the Inkscape programmers added a conversion to jpg. That's
one more lump of code that could have bugs or security violations. The
more complex and entangled a program gets, the more bug-prone it
becomes.
I use claws-mail (for now), but because it uses so many libraries and
does so many things for so many people, it has a bug that, after I
access my inbox, the mouse disappears everytime a popup happens, *on
any application*. I'm thinking of switching to the ultra-simplicity of
mutt so this stuff doesn't happen.
How many times a day do you need to export to .png? Multiply that by 15
seconds. Now ask yourself if that time is worth having a featureful yet
stable program.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
7:40 p.m.
On 8/28/14 8:24 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
Hi, Steve,
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:13:02 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do the
> conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not
> spend the extra time.
Hi Ken,
It's about 15 seconds:
convert myfile.png myfile.jpg; rm myfile.png
I think there's an ImageMagic toolset, which includes convert, for
Windows too. It's 15 seconds.
All command line driven, right? That's if I
follow the web page
correctly. Interesting that there's an iOS package. Just pure
curiosity, I wonder if anyone is doing an Android package. Hmmmmm, that
reminds me, I still have to figure out how to root my Nexus 7. I tried
to stumble my way through it a few months ago, but had to get other
things finished and never got back to it.
It looks like the Mac version is only for Mavericks, which I'm not
planning on updating to.
But, as I've said, command line stuff just isn't my thing, anymore. :-)
The nice thing about computers is everyone has the chance to find what
fits them, although it does seem Apple and MS seems to limit that with
each new OS release.
Let's say the Inkscape programmers added a conversion to jpg.
That's
one more lump of code that could have bugs or security violations. The
more complex and entangled a program gets, the more bug-prone it
becomes.
Since this is open-source, can't you just use code that's already
written and bug free? Obviously, the UI part would have to be written
for Inkscape.
I use claws-mail (for now), but because it uses so many libraries
and
does so many things for so many people, it has a bug that, after I
access my inbox, the mouse disappears everytime a popup happens, *on
any application*. I'm thinking of switching to the ultra-simplicity of
mutt so this stuff doesn't happen.
I thought claws-mail had a Mac version, but
I guess not.
How many times a day do you need to export to .png? Multiply that by
15
seconds. Now ask yourself if that time is worth having a featureful yet
stable program.
It's the other way around. :-) Convert to JPG. For me, when
I do
conversions, it's usually a folder full of files, and when I did do
them, I'd probably have to look the code up all over again! LOL So for
me, it's simpler to use a GUI program to do it.
11:30 p.m.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:40:34 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
On 8/28/14 8:24 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
> Let's say the Inkscape programmers added a conversion to
jpg. That's
> one more lump of code that could have bugs or security violations.
> The more complex and entangled a program gets, the more bug-prone it
> becomes.
Since this is open-source, can't you just use code that's
already
written and bug free? Obviously, the UI part would have to be
written for Inkscape.
No. Here's why:
Bugs increase as a result of complexity. Even if there's not one single
bug in any of the pieces, interactions between the pieces, if put
together with "fat interfaces" including GUI, can cause bugs. Plus, the
difficulty of debugging goes up geometically with the complexity of the
program.
One relatively painless way to accomplish what you're talking about
would be for Inkscape to add an export menu that's nothing but space
for user-defined (perhaps with Inkscape default) conversion commands.
So if you chose jpg on the menu, Inkscape might run the convert
executable. This is very modular, and has little likelihood of
introducing bugs. But throwing source code from the convert
executable into Inkscape would be the kiss of death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_%28object-oriented_programming%29
Take it from a guy who wrote code professionally for 14 years: if you
don't write code modularly, with very thin interfaces between modules,
you'll shed lots of tears. I found that out the hard way, early.
By far the thinnest interface is that of one executable program using
the output of another. Each program returns all its RAM. What program A
gives program B is clearly defined, and can be tested. Debugging can be
cleanly isolated to a specific executable, and if that executable is
small, it will be a quick fix indeed.
The user needn't be responsible for stringing together the executables:
The original programmer can provide a "shellscript" to do that. The
following program, which can be run from a menu or whatever, does just
that:
===================================================
#!/bin/bash
svgname=$1
jpgname=`echo $svgname | sed -e "s/\.svg$/.jpg/"`
convert $svgname $jpgname
===================================================
If the preceding script were called svg2jpg.bat, you could convert any
SVG by right clicking on it in a file browser, choosing "open with",
and choose svg2jpg.sh.
The preceding could be used for any .svg file, not just one in Inkscape.
In summary, the Inkscape developers could either add and debug hundreds
of lines of code to include jpg export, or write the previously
mentioned four line shellscript.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
12:56 a.m.
On 8/29/14 8:30 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:40:34 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
> On 8/28/14 8:24 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
>> Let's say the Inkscape programmers added a conversion to jpg. That's
>> one more lump of code that could have bugs or security violations.
>> The more complex and entangled a program gets, the more bug-prone it
>> becomes.
> Since this is open-source, can't you just use code that's already
> written and bug free? Obviously, the UI part would have to be
> written for Inkscape.
No. Here's why:
Bugs increase as a result of complexity. Even if there's not one single
bug in any of the pieces, interactions between the pieces, if put
together with "fat interfaces" including GUI, can cause bugs. Plus, the
difficulty of debugging goes up geometically with the complexity of the
program.
One relatively painless way to accomplish what you're talking about
would be for Inkscape to add an export menu that's nothing but space
for user-defined (perhaps with Inkscape default) conversion commands.
So if you chose jpg on the menu, Inkscape might run the convert
executable. This is very modular, and has little likelihood of
introducing bugs. But throwing source code from the convert
executable into Inkscape would be the kiss of death.
This might be the best
solution, overall, if anyone involved with the
program was interested in doing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_%28object-oriented_programming%29
Take it from a guy who wrote code professionally for 14 years: if you
don't write code modularly, with very thin interfaces between modules,
you'll shed lots of tears. I found that out the hard way, early.
By far the thinnest interface is that of one executable program using
the output of another. Each program returns all its RAM. What program A
gives program B is clearly defined, and can be tested. Debugging can be
cleanly isolated to a specific executable, and if that executable is
small, it will be a quick fix indeed.
I'm familiar with the idea of modules.
There's a high end DTP program
that dates back to the early Atari computer days that uses the concept
in both programming and marketing. Don't want the vector drawing
module? Don't buy it. I still have the latest Atari version of the
software on my Hades 060 Atari clone.
As I understand it, the program is at the Quark Express/Adobe InDesign
level.
The user needn't be responsible for stringing together the executables:
The original programmer can provide a "shellscript" to do that. The
following program, which can be run from a menu or whatever, does just
that:
===================================================
#!/bin/bash
svgname=$1
jpgname=`echo $svgname | sed -e "s/\.svg$/.jpg/"`
convert $svgname $jpgname
===================================================
If the preceding script were called svg2jpg.bat, you could convert any
SVG by right clicking on it in a file browser, choosing "open with",
and choose svg2jpg.sh.
The preceding could be used for any .svg file, not just one in Inkscape.
What would
control the resulting size of the raster graphic? That's one
feature of the export routine in Inkscape I like.
In summary, the Inkscape developers could either add and debug
hundreds
of lines of code to include jpg export, or write the previously
mentioned four line shellscript.
1:21 a.m.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:56:24 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
What would control the resulting size of the raster graphic?
That's
one feature of the export routine in Inkscape I like.
Command line arguments of the convert executable. Man pages usually
suck, but I think you can figure it out with the man page and a little
experimentation.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
6:25 p.m.
You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD files.
Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric formats. Should
Inkscape support them all, or would it be better to export one or two
formats and allow the user to use another application to convert to
whatever they want?
You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do the
conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not spend the
extra time.
No, I got your point. A few extra seconds and another application to
convert is too much, so you want JPEG export built in.
*My* point was: if we accept that a few extra seconds and another
application is too much for you, we also have to accept that it's too much
for the people that want PSD, TIFF or BMP export built in (and I've known
people to want all of these, for one reason or another).
I'm not against JPEG export from Inkscape if someone wants to contribute
the code, but I think you're making it out to be a bigger deal than it
really is. Converting doesn't have to mean loading a full-on editing
application like Photoshop or The GIMP - there are lightweight applications
that require little more than right clicking on the file and selecting
"Convert to JPEG". Is that really so hard?
Drawing the line is always a tough question? If it were my call,
I'd
look at what's being used in the way of hardware/operating systems. With
the plethora of XP users that are still out there, and seemingly in no
hurry to upgrade, if the file format was available when XP came out, that's
where I'd draw the line. Nothing directly supported for older systems.
When XP came out, eh? That's 2001. The PNG format has been around since
1996, so that already meets your requirements. Better be careful with JPEG
though, there are parts of the spec that have only been finalised since
then (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Photographic_Experts_Group#Published_S...).
Yes, I'm being a little facetious, but it's worth clarifying that
"JPEG"
isn't a single spec that was set in stone many years ago - it's a series of
formats that's been refined and extended over the years. The same for PNG
and many other formats. So if Inkscape gets JPEG export, is it allowed to
use any of the more recent extensions to the standard? Or would you prefer
it to stick to just pre-2001 features, just to be on the safe side?
But now you risk pi$$ing off your users who have an unknown number
of
files they've created, may want to use again, but can't? I think a classy
organization would provide a separate program to convert the older files to
a newer file so the user still has access to his/her older files. This may
be easier for word processors than graphics software.
You seem to have jumped tracks to the supported formats for *import*. I'm
not really sure what that paragraph has to do with the rest of the
conversation, but suffice to say that it's a damned good argument for using
open file formats (such as PNG, SVG and ODF... and yes, JPEG - although
there have been patent concerns around it over the years).
I would actually argue that it's (usually) easier to convert old graphics
to new formats than to do the same for word processor documents. Older
bitmap formats are pretty straightforward and easy to convert. Older vector
formats are less so, as they can be rather complex, but they're still not
as bad as the "binary memory dump" that is the .DOC format. It's simply
that there's been more work put into converting .DOC than (for example)
.CDR files.
If a DTP program doesn't support a bitmap format with alpha channels then
I *do* consider it broken as it prevents you from doing a lot of basic
things, like putting a logo over an image. It doesn't have to be PNG, but
in practice that's pretty much the only widespread open format that does
the job.
We sure define the word "broken" differently. <G>
Bedda define the "basics" then. Because, before there was transparency,
"basics" wouldn't include that ability.
There's been transparency of one sort or another for a mighty long time.
Before PNG, and before GIF's one-bit transparency, even. Heck, if you want
to go back far enough we were engraving images into plates of metal,
coating them in ink, and pressing them onto the page. And you know what...
they included transparency! Any part where the ink didn't appear was
implicitly transparent.
I guess I'm just accepting that it's 2014 and there are plenty of free (and
Free) applications (and commercial ones) that support things like
transparency, and will run even on an old Windows XP box. Given that,
there's no particularly good reason why we should continue to pretend we're
in the year 1985 (or even 2001) and we can't have transparency or any of
the other nice goodies that have come along in the intervening years.
If just about all of your competitors - even the free ones - support a
feature, then I would definitely consider your software to be "broken" if
you don't support it.
Anyway, this part of the discussion is relatively pointless, because it's
already been shown that the software in question *does* support PNG and
*does* support transparency.
So we're back to two real points to your argument:
1) PNG files can be big
2) Converting takes time
(1) is a valid argument for wanting JPEGs, provided you're happy to have a
lossy format with no transparency support. I have no issue with that. (2)
does take time, but it can be kept down just a couple of mouse clicks and a
few seconds per image. Not significantly longer than Inkscape would take
doing the same thing. So where's the sense in the Inkscape developers
spending time implementing JPEG support rather than working on the core
code instead?
Mark
12:27 a.m.
On 9/1/14 3:25 AM, Mark Crutch wrote:
> You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD
> files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric
> formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or would it be better
> to export one or two formats and allow the user to use another
> application to convert to whatever they want?
You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do
the conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend,
not spend the extra time.
No, I got your point. A few extra seconds and another application to
convert is too much, so you want JPEG export built in.
Reality? This is no
different than wanting a different feature in a car
you buy, or on your smartphone, or on your TV. Why should it be
different for software? And you've acknowledged that others would like
other formats, so it's not like I'm the lone voice in the woods.
*My* point was: if we accept that a few extra seconds and another
application is too much for you, we also have to accept that it's too
much for the people that want PSD, TIFF or BMP export built in (and
I've known people to want all of these, for one reason or another).
Exactly.
Which is one route to product improvement, if you want to
improve it. I think the "UNIX" philosophy will prevent any software
created to become a leader and success. Providing things users want,
whether developers want it or not, is what it takes to be successful.
Otherwise, it's just a hobby. The philosophy may be the biggest
impediment to being seriously considered by the majority of computer
users, and why the software created under the philosophy will never
seriously put a dent in commercial software.
I'm not against JPEG export from Inkscape if someone wants to
contribute the code, but I think you're making it out to be a bigger
deal than it really is. Converting doesn't have to mean loading a
full-on editing application like Photoshop or The GIMP - there are
lightweight applications that require little more than right clicking
on the file and selecting "Convert to JPEG". Is that really so hard?
Converting is doing work on something already created. Until you
actually create it, there's nothing to convert. If you look at the
export process as conversion, then you are converting twice. One thing
I hate doing, is the same damn thing twice. LOL
Drawing the line is always a tough question? If it were my call,
I'd look at what's being used in the way of hardware/operating
systems. With the plethora of XP users that are still out there,
and seemingly in no hurry to upgrade, if the file format was
available when XP came out, that's where I'd draw the line.
Nothing directly supported for older systems.
When XP came out, eh? That's 2001. The PNG format has been around
since 1996, so that already meets your requirements. Better be careful
with JPEG though, there are parts of the spec that have only been
finalised since then
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Photographic_Experts_Group#Published_S...).
Standards will always be a moving target. There's no way around that.
But from what I see, JPG is currently the most popular bitmapped
format. Not PNG. Granted, PNG has some advantages, but are the
advantages needed by most users? I'd bet not. Just like a Kenworth has
advantages over a Ford F-150, not everyone needs a Kenworth. <G>
Someone in this thread mentioned changing the dialogue from "Export
Bitmap" to "Export PNG". If Inkscape .48 said that, we likely would not
be having this discussion. The phrase "Export Bitmap" leads to the
expectation of more than one type of bitmap file format was available.
I know I did. Another user expressed his memory of being told years ago
that other formats would be added.
Yes, I'm being a little facetious, but it's worth clarifying
that
"JPEG" isn't a single spec that was set in stone many years ago - it's
a series of formats that's been refined and extended over the years.
The same for PNG and many other formats. So if Inkscape gets JPEG
export, is it allowed to use any of the more recent extensions to the
standard? Or would you prefer it to stick to just pre-2001 features,
just to be on the safe side?
It always should be upgraded to support the latest
standard. All
graphics programs, for the most part, have been upgraded to support it.
Heck, programs had to add it when the first version of JPG came out.
If I wanted pre-2001 formats supported, I'd be asking for GEM, IMG, and
others I've now forgotten about. <G> Hmmm, can't remember what the old
Degas file format was.
But now you risk pi$$ing off your users who have an unknown number
of files they've created, may want to use again, but can't? I
think a classy organization would provide a separate program to
convert the older files to a newer file so the user still has
access to his/her older files. This may be easier for word
processors than graphics software.
You seem to have jumped tracks to the supported formats for *import*.
I'm not really sure what that paragraph has to do with the rest of the
conversation, but suffice to say that it's a damned good argument for
using open file formats (such as PNG, SVG and ODF... and yes, JPEG -
although there have been patent concerns around it over the years).
I kinda did,
didn't I? LOL When wrote that, I was thinking of older
JPGs, SVGs, etc. where the file formats have changed, and now you have
no access to the older file that, while you may not want to edit the
older file, you want to combine it with additional material.
I would actually argue that it's (usually) easier to convert old
graphics to new formats than to do the same for word processor
documents. Older bitmap formats are pretty straightforward and easy to
convert. Older vector formats are less so, as they can be rather
complex, but they're still not as bad as the "binary memory dump" that
is the .DOC format. It's simply that there's been more work put into
converting .DOC than (for example) .CDR files.
I'd agree on the comparison of
word processor files to graphics files
conversions. Even MS has the occasional problem there, from what I've
read. I've got a lot of CDR files I'd like to convert sometime, but I'm
looking for a GUI program to do it. Uniconvertor is supposed to support
it, but I just don't like doing command line stuff anymore. No more
often than I'd use it, I'd have to look up the instructions of what I
needed to type to get the job done. If I'd get off my butt and install
a battery holder, I'd have a running Compaq w/ Tabworx, and a copy of
Corel Draw 4 I could install. Then I'd have another old computer to add
to the collection. LOL
> If a DTP program doesn't support a bitmap format with alpha
> channels then I *do* consider it broken as it prevents you from
> doing a lot of basic things, like putting a logo over an image.
> It doesn't have to be PNG, but in practice that's pretty much the
> only widespread open format that does the job.
We sure define the word "broken" differently. <G>
Bedda define the "basics" then. Because, before there was
transparency, "basics" wouldn't include that ability.
There's been transparency of one sort or another for a mighty long
time. Before PNG, and before GIF's one-bit transparency, even. Heck,
if you want to go back far enough we were engraving images into plates
of metal, coating them in ink, and pressing them onto the page. And
you know what... they included transparency! Any part where the ink
didn't appear was implicitly transparent.
But, how much was transparency
supported in computer software?
I guess I'm just accepting that it's 2014 and there are
plenty of free
(and Free) applications (and commercial ones) that support things like
transparency, and will run even on an old Windows XP box. Given that,
there's no particularly good reason why we should continue to pretend
we're in the year 1985 (or even 2001) and we can't have transparency
or any of the other nice goodies that have come along in the
intervening years.
I never said you can't have it. It's just not always
necessary.
If just about all of your competitors - even the free ones - support
a
feature, then I would definitely consider your software to be "broken"
if you don't support it.
To me, broken is something that doesn't work, not
something that's missing.
From my dictionary program:
broken |ˈbrōkən| past participle of break
adjective
1 having been fractured or damaged and no longer in one piece or in
working order
Something that is not working, not something that is missing. :-)
Anyway, this part of the discussion is relatively pointless, because
it's already been shown that the software in question *does* support
PNG and *does* support transparency.
So we're back to two real points to your argument:
1) PNG files can be big
2) Converting takes time
(1) is a valid argument for wanting JPEGs, provided you're happy to
have a lossy format with no transparency support. I have no issue with
that.
The needs of the end product/project would control whether the lossy
format and/or no transparency makes any difference.
(2) does take time, but it can be kept down just a couple of mouse
clicks and a few seconds per image. Not significantly longer than
Inkscape would take doing the same thing. So where's the sense in the
Inkscape developers spending time implementing JPEG support rather
than working on the core code instead?
As .48 is now, it's the goodwill of
providing users with what they are
looking for, and not just what developers/contributors want to provide.
That difference is one of the reasons I read quite often why things like
Libre Office will never give Office a run for its money. Unless MS goes
totally to cloud only operations, and no desktop versions, IMO. If that
happens, I see little practical difference to the "olden" days of dumb
terminals and no control over your own hardware.
1:40 a.m.
Exactly. Which is one route to product improvement, if you want to
improve it. I think the "UNIX" philosophy will prevent any software
created to become a leader and success. Providing things users want,
whether developers want it or not, is what it takes to be successful.
Otherwise, it's just a hobby. The philosophy may be the biggest impediment
to being seriously considered by the majority of computer users, and why
the software created under the philosophy will never seriously put a dent
in commercial software.
The Unix philosophy is for each application to do one thing, but do it
well. It's the "do it well" part that's important. Yes, Inkscape could
support JPEG or a myriad other formats. But each format has options,
settings, metadata and more. I'd rather have one conversion application
that handles all the options on all the formats well, rather than have
every application on my system reimplementing the code time and time again,
each with a slightly different UI and list of supported features.
You would prefer the latter, it seems. That's fine, you're welcome to use
monolithic software that works in that way. If you want Inkscape to work
like that, you're also welcome to contribute code to make it do so. The
devs don't have to accept it, but then you're also welcome to fork the code
and create your own monolithic application. Or pay someone else to do it,
if you're not a developer.
No, I don't really expect you to do any of that, but you could in
principle. You can do it because Inkscape is Free Software, and as such
it's developed by a group of people who *have* contributed code, time, or
money to make it do what they want. For many of them it *is* "just a
hobby", and that's not a bad thing.
I do find it interesting that you spend half your time worrying about
people with old computers that don't have much disk space, memory or
processing power, and the other half wanting monolithic applications that
duplicate each others' functionality.
Standards will always be a moving target. There's no way around
that.
But from what I see, JPG is currently the most popular bitmapped format.
Not PNG. Granted, PNG has some advantages, but are the advantages needed
by most users? I'd bet not. Just like a Kenworth has advantages over a
Ford F-150, not everyone needs a Kenworth. <G
Perhaps you should check out the Inkscape forum and see how often people
complain that their images are being exported with a white background
(because they've used "Save As Cairo PNG" rather than "Export
Bitmap"). No,
not everyone needs transparency, but I think it's a more popular request
than you might realise. Transparency is often needed in DTP applications,
but even more so for web pages, icons in applications, sprites in games and
so on - all of which are frequently created using Inkscape.
There's been transparency of one sort or another for a mighty long time.
> Before PNG, and before GIF's one-bit transparency, even. Heck, if you want
> to go back far enough we were engraving images into plates of metal,
> coating them in ink, and pressing them onto the page. And you know what...
> they included transparency! Any part where the ink didn't appear was
> implicitly transparent.
But, how much was transparency supported in computer
software?
It's been well supported by professional DTP software for many, many years,
if only in the form of applying clipping paths to images. Alpha channels
are a more recent addition, but I imagine that professional DTP
applications have been supporting them for at least 15 years, if not
longer. I'm no software historian though, so I'm happy to be proved wrong
on that front.
But does it really matter whether or not it was supported 20 years ago? Any
DTP application worth mentioning that's been released in the past decade
supports it, which is why I suggested that an application without it is
"broken".
To me, broken is something that doesn't work, not something that's missing.
3:16 a.m.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:27:59 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
On 9/1/14 3:25 AM, Mark Crutch wrote:
>
>> You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop
>> PSD files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric
>> formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or would it be
>> better to export one or two formats and allow the user to use
>> another application to convert to whatever they want?
> You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do
> the conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend,
> not spend the extra time.
>
>
> No, I got your point. A few extra seconds and another application
> to convert is too much, so you want JPEG export built in.
Reality? This is no different than wanting a different feature in a
car you buy, or on your smartphone, or on your TV. Why should it be
different for software? And you've acknowledged that others would
like other formats, so it's not like I'm the lone voice in the woods.
Ken,
You're beating a dead horse, and in a few more go-arounds people are
going to start getting mean. Inkscape isn't a car, a smartphone, or a
TV. It isn't a product: There's no profit motive. I don't think
Inkscape developers even care how many users use it: If you like it,
use it, otherwise don't. The feature you've asked for is already doable
with a shellscript or 15 seconds of your time, and as a result, nobody
else cares about that feature.
If Inkscape doesn't meet your criteria, pick software that does. If
you can't afford it, I guess you have some hard choices to make, but
keep in mind that any of the Inscape developers can sell their
programming time for $70.00/hr, so *they're* the ones who get to decide
what they put in and what they leave out, and so far I think they've
done an excellent job.
Your initial question was quite thought-provoking, but it's been asked
and answered several times, and if you keep asking and arguing, you'll
be labelled with the infamous T word. Best to let it go, and if you'd
prefer different vector graphic creation software, by all means use it!
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
2:01 a.m.
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:25:20 +0100
Mark Crutch <markc@...2744...> wrote:
>
> You want JPEG export. I know others that
> would like Photoshop PSD files. Yet others
> will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric
> formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or
> would it be better to export one or two
> formats and allow the user to use another
> application to convert to whatever they want?
>
> You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another
> application to do the conversion takes time.
> I want to minimize the time I spend, not
> spend the extra time.
>
No, I got your point. A few extra seconds and
another application to convert is too much, so
you want JPEG export built in.
*My* point was: if we accept that a few extra
seconds and another application is too much for
you, we also have to accept that it's too much
for the people that want PSD, TIFF or BMP
export built in (and I've known people to want
all of these, for one reason or another).
I'm not against JPEG export from Inkscape if
someone wants to contribute the code, but I
think you're making it out to be a bigger deal
than it really is. Converting doesn't have to
mean loading a full-on editing application like
Photoshop or The GIMP - there are lightweight
applications that require little more than
right clicking on the file and selecting
"Convert to JPEG". Is that really so hard?
> Drawing the line is always a tough
> question? If it were my call, I'd look at
> what's being used in the way of
> hardware/operating systems. With the
> plethora of XP users that are still out
> there, and seemingly in no hurry to upgrade,
> if the file format was available when XP came
> out, that's where I'd draw the line. Nothing
> directly supported for older systems.
>
When XP came out, eh? That's 2001. The PNG
format has been around since 1996, so that
already meets your requirements. Better be
careful with JPEG though, there are parts of
the spec that have only been finalised since
then
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Photographic_Experts_Group#Published_S...).
Yes, I'm being a little facetious, but it's
worth clarifying that "JPEG" isn't a single
spec that was set in stone many years ago -
it's a series of formats that's been refined
and extended over the years. The same for PNG
and many other formats. So if Inkscape gets
JPEG export, is it allowed to use any of the
more recent extensions to the standard? Or
would you prefer it to stick to just pre-2001
features, just to be on the safe side?
> But now you risk pi$$ing off your users who
> have an unknown number of files they've
> created, may want to use again, but can't? I
> think a classy organization would provide a
> separate program to convert the older files
> to a newer file so the user still has access
> to his/her older files. This may be easier
> for word processors than graphics software.
>
You seem to have jumped tracks to the supported
formats for *import*. I'm not really sure what
that paragraph has to do with the rest of the
conversation, but suffice to say that it's a
damned good argument for using open file
formats (such as PNG, SVG and ODF... and yes,
JPEG - although there have been patent concerns
around it over the years).
I would actually argue that it's (usually)
easier to convert old graphics to new formats
than to do the same for word processor
documents. Older bitmap formats are pretty
straightforward and easy to convert. Older
vector formats are less so, as they can be
rather complex, but they're still not as bad as
the "binary memory dump" that is the .DOC
format. It's simply that there's been more work
put into converting .DOC than (for
example) .CDR files.
>
> If a DTP program doesn't support a bitmap
> format with alpha channels then I *do*
> consider it broken as it prevents you from
> doing a lot of basic things, like putting a
> logo over an image. It doesn't have to be
> PNG, but in practice that's pretty much the
> only widespread open format that does the job.
>
> We sure define the word "broken"
> differently. <G>
>
> Bedda define the "basics" then. Because,
> before there was transparency, "basics"
> wouldn't include that ability.
>
There's been transparency of one sort or
another for a mighty long time. Before PNG, and
before GIF's one-bit transparency, even. Heck,
if you want to go back far enough we were
engraving images into plates of metal, coating
them in ink, and pressing them onto the page.
And you know what... they included
transparency! Any part where the ink didn't
appear was implicitly transparent.
I guess I'm just accepting that it's 2014 and
there are plenty of free (and Free)
applications (and commercial ones) that support
things like transparency, and will run even on
an old Windows XP box. Given that, there's no
particularly good reason why we should continue
to pretend we're in the year 1985 (or even
2001) and we can't have transparency or any of
the other nice goodies that have come along in
the intervening years.
If just about all of your competitors - even
the free ones - support a feature, then I would
definitely consider your software to be
"broken" if you don't support it.
Anyway, this part of the discussion is
relatively pointless, because it's already been
shown that the software in question *does*
support PNG and *does* support transparency.
So we're back to two real points to your
argument:
1) PNG files can be big
2) Converting takes time
(1) is a valid argument for wanting JPEGs,
provided you're happy to have a lossy format
with no transparency support. I have no issue
with that. (2) does take time, but it can be
kept down just a couple of mouse clicks and a
few seconds per image. Not significantly longer
than Inkscape would take doing the same thing.
So where's the sense in the Inkscape developers
spending time implementing JPEG support rather
than working on the core code instead?
Mark
Why does the OP prefer jpeg to png? Now what I
would like is the facility to save pdf in PDF
X/1-a:2001 format for printers. But I can do
that conversion in Scribus as needed.
--
John Culleton
Wexford Press
Free list of books for self-publishers:
http://wexfordpress.net/shortlist.html
PDF e-book: "Create Book Covers with Scribus"
available at
http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html
12:37 a.m.
On 9/1/14 11:01 AM, john Culleton wrote:
<snip>
Why does the OP prefer jpeg to png? Now what I
would like is the facility to save pdf in PDF
X/1-a:2001 format for printers. But I can do
that conversion in Scribus as needed.
LOL OT for a moment. Over the years,
I've noticed things like this
seem to get lost in a long thread. I've probably answered it twice, at
least. <G> In the mood of good humor...
In some cases, the PNG is simply not necessary. And in the case of the
original post, PNG is definitely not needed.
Believe it or not, not every one out there wants to waste storing
unneeded data on their hard drive, in this case a lossless file format
w/transparency when that information is simply not needed. When you have
only X amount of free space, why store Y number of PNGs when may
possibly save 3Y JPG files?
Kind of like having to store a 5 gallon container of paint when you only
need 1 gallon.
Ken
9:20 p.m.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:37:28 -0600
Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
On 9/1/14 11:01 AM, john Culleton wrote:
<snip>
> Why does the OP prefer jpeg to png? Now what I
> would like is the facility to save pdf in PDF
> X/1-a:2001 format for printers. But I can do
> that conversion in Scribus as needed.
LOL OT for a moment. Over the years, I've
noticed things like this seem to get lost in a
long thread. I've probably answered it twice,
at least. <G> In the mood of good humor...
In some cases, the PNG is simply not
necessary. And in the case of the original
post, PNG is definitely not needed.
Believe it or not, not every one out there
wants to waste storing unneeded data on their
hard drive, in this case a lossless file format
w/transparency when that information is simply
not needed. When you have only X amount of free
space, why store Y number of PNGs when may
possibly save 3Y JPG files?
Kind of like having to store a 5 gallon
container of paint when you only need 1 gallon.
Ken
Or having an 8x10 portrait on the wall when a
wallet size would be cheaper and smaller. In
any case conversion from png to jpg can be done
in seconds with the "convert" function of
Imagemagick. The exact command string is left as
an exercise for the student. Gimp can also do it.
And so on.
--
John Culleton
Wexford Press
Free list of books for self-publishers:
http://wexfordpress.net/shortlist.html
PDF e-book: "Create Book Covers with Scribus"
available at
http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html
1:31 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:
I was beginning to suspect the other vector formats do not support
some
of the features of SVG. I ran into similar issues 20 or so years ago
with vector file formats.
Inkscape specifically has some special effects that are not part of the SVG
spec. There are probably some things in SVG that are not recognized in
other formats, but those are pretty minor unless you're doing really weird
things.
It looks like Inkscape doesn't export/save jpg files. :-( Hope
that's
remedied in the next version. We've discovered that PNG is not always
the best file format. What bothers me most about the format is the
sheer size, since it's lossless, just like TIFF.
You can always use an image converter to convert it over to JPG - there are
many tutorials online on how to do this :)
-another Chris
2:30 a.m.
As we've been working on this, it's brought back memories of issues with
other vector software that had "leading edge" features that the run of
the mill software couldn't handle.
My favorite program in Windows for this is Irfanview, as it has other
general manipulation abilities that you can do as a batch. Graphics
Workshop is another.
Ken
On 8/26/14 10:31 AM, Chris Tooley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Ken Springer
<snowshed1@...3003...
<mailto:snowshed1@...3003...>> wrote:
I was beginning to suspect the other vector formats do not support
some
of the features of SVG. I ran into similar issues 20 or so years ago
with vector file formats.
Inkscape specifically has some special effects that are not part of
the SVG spec. There are probably some things in SVG that are not
recognized in other formats, but those are pretty minor unless you're
doing really weird things.
It looks like Inkscape doesn't export/save jpg files. :-( Hope
that's
remedied in the next version. We've discovered that PNG is not always
the best file format. What bothers me most about the format is the
sheer size, since it's lossless, just like TIFF.
You can always use an image converter to convert it over to JPG -
there are many tutorials online on how to do this :)
-another Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
7:26 a.m.
I would suggest saving as .emf instead of .wmf. .emf files should normally be
readable by most Windows 'Office' programs, and the .emf output does not use
Uniconvertor.
Alvin Penner
--
View this message in context:
http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-and-Uniconvertor-tp4971273p4971...
Sent from the Inkscape - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
8:56 a.m.
We'll give it a try. Thanks, Alvin.
On 8/25/14 4:26 PM, alvinpenner wrote:
I would suggest saving as .emf instead of .wmf. .emf files should
normally be
readable by most Windows 'Office' programs, and the .emf output does not use
Uniconvertor.
Alvin Penner
--
View this message in context:
http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-and-Uniconvertor-tp4971273p4971...
Sent from the Inkscape - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer
3192
days inactive
3200
days old
inkscape-user@lists.inkscape.org
80 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
A. da Mek -
alvinpenner -
Brynn -
Chris Mohler -
Chris Tooley -
Donn -
Donn Ingle -
Gary Hawkins -
Hendrik Boom -
john Culleton -
Jon A. Cruz -
Josh Andler -
Ken Springer -
Mark Crutch -
Martin Owens -
Steve Litt -
Tavmjong Bah