Sorry
9 messages in this thread
Hi, I'm really sorry for raising such a rucus, it turns out I'm having
spooky problems wiht my controller. Trying to track down the problem hasn't
been easy. Again, sorry for pointing the finger at you!
But on a lighter side what's the word with 3.0? When will we see it? I
have not received anything in the mail yet. Thanks for your quick offer to
help.
Humbly yours,
Paul McCarthy
Paul: I was just thinking about you…. Hope the problem is not serious.
PPage 3.0 will be shipping in March. I am unable to verify a correct
address for you as there are a number of Paul McCarthy's in our data
base. Please E-Mail me your full name and address so as I can verify if
info on 3.0 has been sent to you.
Best regards,
Darlene McLean Gold Disk Technical Support
Hey Darlene,
Not to put you on the spot or anything, but will 3.0 import any graphics
other than Bitmaps and ProDraw Clips? For instance, can GIF's or TIF's or
any of the MSDOS (Ugh) graphic formats be imported? If not, that is
definately something Gold Disk should look into.
On Hold and Waiting (but not with bated breath!) for 3.0, Rodger
– via Whap!
Rodger,
No new graphic formats for import with PP 3.0 but I'm sure that it _will_
be looked into. Recent experiences suggest to me that conversion is better.
I DL'd some Mac TIF files that were each 100K-250K. After conversion to IFF
they were 8K-58K!
Malcolm
Malcolm,
Dealing with TIFF as often as I do, be aware that most Mac Tiffs are
almost always uncompressed, or compressed using a very poor compression
algorythm; PackBits. It's part of the TIFF standard. Uncompressed 24-bit
color TIFF files of any sizable area/resolution are HUGE!
There are much better compression schemes for TIFF in the standards, but
support for them is not widespread. Also be aware that conversion may be
dropping a lot of resolution. If you're winding up with a IFF that
dsiplays fine in a Hires viewer without scrolling being necessary, and the
TIFF file was described as an 8.5 x 11 color scan at 300DPI, something's
being lost in the translation.
Sleeping With the Enemy,
Doug
Doug,
Well, the ones I was using were admittedly an extreme case. They were
uncompressed 8-bit files but the picture data was monochrome. I dumped
extra bitplanes with no loss.
It's just another unfortuate circumstance to have to import 100K of TIFF
when 8K of IFF will give the same results. I used five or six such files on
one page. If I'd used the original TIFF files I wouldn't have had
sufficient memory. Of course, mileage varies as the graphics grows in
complexity.
Malcolm
Malcolm,
Monochrome 8-bit files? Somebody's scanner software is not following the
rules. Probably sourced from the Clone world. 8)
The strange part is, TIFF and IFF, for graphics, are amazingly alike in
basic construction. Howevr, reflecting upon what evolution has produced,
basic methods can lead to some pretty damn weird things.
Keeping Up With the Phyla,
Doug
Doug,
Well, I suspect the pictures weren't scanned. They were probably drawn in a
paint program with the user blithely unaware. I was aware that TIFF and IFF
were quite similar but that doesn't necessarily mean they're used
similarly. On a single-tasking machine, you can waste memory like there's
no tomorrow.
Malcolm
Thanks Malcolm!
– via Whap!