Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] Netatalk and OPI

From: Kadinger Andras <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:30:30 +0100 (CET)

On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Frank Morton wrote:

> >But we use almost exclusively (more than 98%) Photoshop EPS and
> >Illustrator EPS files, where a lo-res file is unnecessary,
> 
> My experience is the same. What does everyone think. Does an EPS
> only OPI do the job (i.e., no TIFF or Scitex CT support is not really
> a problem)?

Actually I haven't written this in the previous message for I wanted it to
look good, but there is one thing that I find useful that can't be done
with EPS-es: colorizing; you can't colorize a grayscale or bitmap EPS in
Quark, while you can do that with TIFFs. For me this is the only argument
to validate supporting TIFFs. However since this is so very rare here, I
can live with reading them up at full-res once while placing into the
document (Quark downsamples them anyway and uses that for redraws).

Regards,
Andras Kadinger
[email-masked]

---

From: Kadinger Andras <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:49:07 +0100 (CET)

> look good, but there is one thing that I find useful that can't be done
[...]

I apologize. Of course this is not to keep you from releasing anything you
might wanted to originally. 

Regards,
Andras Kadinger
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Hans-Guenter Weigand)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:30:38 +0100

> might wanted to originally. 

IMHO you don't need to apologize at all. I'm still collecting ideas, and
my first one was to have a feature-for-feature compatible replacement
for some well known software. I don't have any problems with recognizing
that this is a bad idea.  :)

Certainly it is better to focus on PDF support, because this is the
technology that will change our business soon.

-hgw

---

From: [email-masked] (Hans-Guenter Weigand)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:30:40 +0100

[email-masked] (Kadinger Andras) wrote:
...
> Quark, while you can do that with TIFFs. For me this is the only argument

:)
These colorized tiffs cause problems in Helios OPI, because it can't
make low-res files from them. It dumps core and leaves a big and
unusable image file.  :-o

> document (Quark downsamples them anyway and uses that for redraws).

Actually our customers have to do the same, see above...

-hgw

---

From: "Frank Morton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:03:38 -0500

---

From: [email-masked] (Lee Blevins)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:10:14 -0500

> only OPI do the job (i.e., no TIFF or Scitex CT support is not really

I'm in. This way a proxy file can be use and tiffs will be included in
high res form.

Once again, I suggest using the Sampler app becuase it's freely
distributable and uses standard "%ALD..." comments.

The project that would be a considerable effort would be to create at
daemon that monitors a directory and creates these low res eps files
with the standard OPI comments.

But it need not be tied to the basic OPI substitution engine.

In the long run tiffs are not that difficult. Parameters have to be set
for what incarnations of tiffs would be supported. I find it interesting
that Photoshop represented it's tiff spec as 4.2 but used CMYK which
wasn't supported untill 5.0 spec. The trick to them is a beefy tag
interpreter and simply ignore the tags you don't support. This is what
photoshop does.