High quality images

[Matt Sullivan]

(1) Actually, with multiple 100+ Mb files and poster-sized or larger output,
scaling, rotation, cropping and compression take on a whole new meaning.
When the size of the cache exceeds that of the RAM on the output engine,
it's like running Photoshop on 256Mb RAM...everything goes at the speed of
the cache disk.

(2) But Frame does send the compressed referenced file to the driver to
perform calculations there, yes?
 It's been my understanding that InDesign is the only application that
pre-processed scaling, rotation, and cropping before sending to an output
device. Is that no longer/not correct?
I've always understood that all other applications will pass the referenced
file to Distiller or the RIP, and that processing occurs there.

Also, did you have an opinion on the pasting of screen captures vs. saving
to disk?


-----Original Message-----
From: Dov Isaacs [mailto:isaacs at adobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:50 PM
To: Matt Sullivan; Framers List
Subject: RE: High quality images

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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>