High quality images

[Dov Isaacs]

Matt,

Several observations:

(1)	There is something drastically wrong with your
RIP if it is slowing down when faced with compressed
images.

(2)	How an image is compressed in a TIFF file is
irrelevant in terms of what FrameMaker, the PostScript
driver, and if you are using a PDF workflow, what
the Distiller and Acrobat's print routines do with
the image with regards to compression. Any LZW or ZIP
compression in a screen shot (or any other image)
imported into FrameMaker is absolutely lost when
FrameMaker sends the image data to the PostScript driver!

	- Dov

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:matt at grafixtraining.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:45 PM
> To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List'
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for 
> screen shots...
> 
> In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a 
> great option for bitmap files including screen shots. 
> However, I always recommended staying away from the ZIP 
> compression option. Though a "lossless" format, both 
> compression and scaling tended to horribly slow down our RIP process.
> Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't 
> much advantage to compressing such small files, either.
> 
> In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP 
> compression saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that 
> smaller size, the RIP time would often increase by a factor 
> of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the application (with 
> the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In each 
> case, the application passes the processing (decompression, 
> scaling, and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all saving to 
> PDF & printing the PDF, then most RIP's will hardly hiccup, 
> and given the speed of most PDF generation, it's doubtful 
> you'll be troubled by a (statistically) slower conversion. 
> Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to printing.
> 
> Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF 
> the compression is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress 
> in the Distilling process. If sending for commercial print, 
> then the file savings is likely outweighed by additional RIP 
> (processing) time.
> 
> For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply 
> pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the 
> files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but 
> simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. 
> Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply 
> pasting SCREEN CAPTURES only?
> 
> Matt Sullivan
> GRAFIX Training, Inc.
> 888/882-2819
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameusers.com
> [mailto:framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameuse
> rs.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM
> To: Sean; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: High quality images
> 
> I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample screen 
> shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP.
> Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen 
> shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to 
> importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite 
> layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what 
> many print service providers will tell you, all images are 
> resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled) to 
> match the combination of the device's actual resolution and 
> the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is 
> typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in 
> Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway, doing 
> a "manual" upsampling prior to the RIP process may cause real 
> content in your image to be lost. For screen shots, such data 
> lossiness can yield really crufty results. And such extra 
> resampling prior to the RIP process violates the "reliable 
> PDF workflow" principles.
> 
> 	- Dov 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>