* ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses @ 2004-07-24 19:41 Matt Gushee 2004-07-24 20:21 ` Bill McClain ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Matt Gushee @ 2004-07-24 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Hello, all-- I am planning to publish a book that is typeset using ConTeXt, and very soon I am going to start contacting printers for estimates. Given that a shop prints from PDF files, does it matter that the PDFs are produced by ConTeXt? I've never worked with regular printers, but I have taken PDF files produced by TeX or ConTeXt several times to Kinko's [for the non-US readers: Kinko's is a shop found all over North America--originally they were just a photocopy shop, but now they offer a wide range of services, including computer rental, design consulting, low-end POD printing ... they do good work within their limits, but their staff are really only knowledgeable about mainstream commercial DTP software--the notion of TeX is totally beyond them]. I have found that they can produce good results, but it seems they have to adjust some settings in their system and make several attempts before the job comes out right. Are problems likely to arise with normal printers? If so, can anyone suggest questions I should ask to help determine whether they can handle my files? Also, is there anything in particular I should do to my files to make sure they are print-ready? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. -- Matt Gushee When a nation follows the Way, Englewood, Colorado, USA Horses bear manure through mgushee@havenrock.com its fields; http://www.havenrock.com/ When a nation ignores the Way, Horses bear soldiers through its streets. --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses 2004-07-24 19:41 ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses Matt Gushee @ 2004-07-24 20:21 ` Bill McClain 2004-07-24 20:25 ` Siep Kroonenberg 2004-07-25 9:57 ` Henning Hraban Ramm 2004-07-25 10:01 ` Mats Broberg 2 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Bill McClain @ 2004-07-24 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ntg-context On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:41:38 -0600 Matt Gushee <mgushee@havenrock.com> wrote: > I am planning to publish a book that is typeset using ConTeXt, and > very soon I am going to start contacting printers for estimates. Given > that a shop prints from PDF files, does it matter that the PDFs are > produced by ConTeXt? I've only dealt with one print shop (www.bookmobile.com) for my books, but have never had any problems with pdf files produced by Context->pdftex. You have to be somewhat self-sufficient, in that if you ask questions they'll tell you all about the right Pagemaker settings, etc. Obviously, you should have all fonts embedded. Different shops might have different requirements, but Bookmobile simply requires an exact image of the book, page size defined to be the paper size. Easy. This has all been for digital printing and perfect-bound paperbacks. I would like to know if an offset press generating folded and gathered signatures takes the same pdf input. And where to go for sewn hardcovers in small quantities and short run leatherbound books for "collector's editions." I haven't explored those issues yet but will do so eventually. -Bill -- Sattre Press Pagan Papers http://sattre-press.com/ by Kenneth Grahame info@sattre-press.com http://sattre-press.com/pp.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses 2004-07-24 20:21 ` Bill McClain @ 2004-07-24 20:25 ` Siep Kroonenberg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Siep Kroonenberg @ 2004-07-24 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:21:39PM -0500, Bill McClain wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:41:38 -0600 > Matt Gushee <mgushee@havenrock.com> wrote: > > > I am planning to publish a book that is typeset using ConTeXt, and > > very soon I am going to start contacting printers for estimates. Given > > that a shop prints from PDF files, does it matter that the PDFs are > > produced by ConTeXt? > > This has all been for digital printing and perfect-bound paperbacks. I > would like to know if an offset press generating folded and gathered > signatures takes the same pdf input. And where to go for sewn hardcovers > in small quantities and short run leatherbound books for "collector's > editions." I haven't explored those issues yet but will do so > eventually. > > -Bill The printshops that I dealt with were capable of imposing normally paginated pdfs into signatures for offset printing. I've never done imposition myself. -- Siep Kroonenberg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses 2004-07-24 19:41 ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses Matt Gushee 2004-07-24 20:21 ` Bill McClain @ 2004-07-25 9:57 ` Henning Hraban Ramm 2004-07-25 10:01 ` Mats Broberg 2 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Henning Hraban Ramm @ 2004-07-25 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) > I am planning to publish a book that is typeset using ConTeXt, and very > soon I am going to start contacting printers for estimates. Given that > a > shop prints from PDF files, does it matter that the PDFs are produced > by > ConTeXt? Normally they should be able to process nearly every PDF. ;-) If you don't need color, it'll be no problem. If you need color, you must be careful to define everything in CMYK mode. If you use pictures, save them as PDF; include ICC profiles if you need - ConTeXt simply includes the PDFs "as is", so nothing gets lost. If you like to impose yourself (discuss this with your printer!) you must need some parameters like preferred size of the printing plate, folding space etc. Normally you should leave this to the printshop. Grüßlis vom Hraban! --- http://www.fiee.net/texnique/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* RE: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses 2004-07-24 19:41 ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses Matt Gushee 2004-07-24 20:21 ` Bill McClain 2004-07-25 9:57 ` Henning Hraban Ramm @ 2004-07-25 10:01 ` Mats Broberg 2004-07-25 11:58 ` Adam Lindsay 2 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Mats Broberg @ 2004-07-25 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) > -----Original Message----- > From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl > [mailto:ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl] On Behalf Of Matt Gushee > Sent: den 24 juli 2004 21:42 > To: ntg-context@ntg.nl > Are problems likely to arise with normal printers? If so, can > anyone suggest questions I should ask to help determine > whether they can handle my files? Also, is there anything in > particular I should do to my files to make sure they are print-ready? > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Matt, Being a newbie when it comes to ConTeXt, but having worked in the commercial printing busines for a decade, I would say that the majority of printers actually prefer PDF files rather than Quark, InDesign or Pagemaker files. At least that is the case in Europe, and it would suprise me if it is not the same situation in USA. The reason for this is that the printers get away from all the associated problems with the DTP program files: typfaces that are lacking, missing image links, text that may reflow etc. However, a caveat emptor: - I don't quite understand how ConTeXt:ers deal with solid PMS spot colours - i.e. not a spot colour in CMYK mode where the spot colour is made up of a screened colour mix of cyan, magenta, yellow and black, but a colour that you want to print with a specially mixed Pantone PMS ink from an additional printing plate (apart from the four C, M, Y, K process plates). However, this is frequently done in printing, so it would surprise me if ConTeXt didn't have a solution for it. - Also, I don't know whether it is possible to downsample images in PDF's that you generate from ConTeXt. If it is, avoid it. The printer expects CMYK images (not RGB!) where the resolution is approx. 2 times the screen count in the final print, @ the physical size on the paper. So if you have an image in your PDF that is 10 cms /4 in. wide, and you want it printed in a 150 lpi (lines per inch) screen, make sure the original resolution is 300 dpi @ 10 cms / 4 in. All the best, Mats Broberg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses 2004-07-25 10:01 ` Mats Broberg @ 2004-07-25 11:58 ` Adam Lindsay 2004-07-25 12:03 ` Mats Broberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Adam Lindsay @ 2004-07-25 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Mats Broberg said this at Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:01:03 +0200: >- I don't quite understand how ConTeXt:ers deal with solid PMS spot >colours Mats, have a look at: <http://pragma-ade.com/general/manuals/msplit.pdf> Disclaimer: I haven't used spot colours yet, but I know it's in a manual. :) -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Adam T. Lindsay atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk Computing Dept, Lancaster University +44(0)1524/594.537 Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/593.608 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* RE: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses 2004-07-25 11:58 ` Adam Lindsay @ 2004-07-25 12:03 ` Mats Broberg 2004-07-27 6:15 ` ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! Matt Gushee 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Mats Broberg @ 2004-07-25 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Yes, I eventually found it in that manual - sorry for using bandwidth for RTFM issues... :) Best regards, Mats Broberg > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Lindsay [mailto:atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk] > Sent: den 25 juli 2004 13:59 > To: mats.broberg@arsimprimispress.com; 'mailing list for > ConTeXt users' > Subject: Re: [NTG-context] ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses > > > Mats Broberg said this at Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:01:03 +0200: > > >- I don't quite understand how ConTeXt:ers deal with solid PMS spot > >colours > > Mats, have a look at: > <http://pragma-> ade.com/general/manuals/msplit.pdf> > > > Disclaimer: I haven't > used spot colours yet, but I know it's in a manual. :) > > -- > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Adam T. Lindsay atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk > Computing Dept, Lancaster University +44(0)1524/594.537 > Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/593.608 > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! 2004-07-25 12:03 ` Mats Broberg @ 2004-07-27 6:15 ` Matt Gushee 2004-07-27 6:33 ` Brooks Moses ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Matt Gushee @ 2004-07-27 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Thanks for all the responses. I got some very useful information here. I do have a couple of quick follow-up questions. On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:21:39PM -0500, Bill McClain wrote: > > Different shops might have different requirements, but Bookmobile simply > requires an exact image of the book, page size defined to be the paper > size. Easy. You're referring to just the interior, right? I would think that covers have to have a bit of bleed, no? > This has all been for digital printing and perfect-bound paperbacks. Pretty much what I'm doing for now. As a matter of fact, partly inspired by your example, I'm attempting something rather similar to your publishing biz--though not in direct competition, I hope and believe. On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:01:03PM +0200, Mats Broberg wrote: > > Being a newbie when it comes to ConTeXt, but having worked in the > commercial printing busines for a decade, I would say that the majority > of printers actually prefer PDF files rather than Quark, InDesign or > Pagemaker files. At least that is the case in Europe, and it would > suprise me if it is not the same situation in USA. Well, yes. Many printers here do prefer PDF. However, there's a small problem in some cases--I know this is true for Kinko's, and was wondering if it's true for regular printers, too: they think that PDF means "Adobe PDF"--i.e. they believe that Adobe software is *the* way to produce PDF, and are mostly unaware that there is such a thing as a PDF standard. Now, I don't fully understand the issue, but apparently Adobe software doesn't entirely follow the published specs, whereas TeX does. And some processing software seems to be designed specifically to work with the quirks of Acrobat output, and sometimes has trouble with PDFTeX output. > - Also, I don't know whether it is possible to downsample images in > PDF's that you generate from ConTeXt. If it is, avoid it. That raises an important question: if downsampling is done, is it obvious what ConTeXt commands cause it to happen? > The printer > expects CMYK images (not RGB!) where the resolution is approx. 2 times > the screen count in the final print, @ the physical size on the paper. > So if you have an image in your PDF that is 10 cms /4 in. wide, and you > want it printed in a 150 lpi (lines per inch) screen, make sure the > original resolution is 300 dpi @ 10 cms / 4 in. Now that's interesting. I imagined you would get the best results with images that were designed exactly at the printer resolution. -- Matt Gushee When a nation follows the Way, Englewood, Colorado, USA Horses bear manure through mgushee@havenrock.com its fields; http://www.havenrock.com/ When a nation ignores the Way, Horses bear soldiers through its streets. --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! 2004-07-27 6:15 ` ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! Matt Gushee @ 2004-07-27 6:33 ` Brooks Moses 2004-07-27 9:27 ` Siep Kroonenberg 2004-07-27 11:53 ` George N. White III 2004-07-27 7:36 ` ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! Tobias Hilbricht ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Brooks Moses @ 2004-07-27 6:33 UTC (permalink / raw) At 11:15 PM 7/26/2004, you wrote: >On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:21:39PM -0500, Bill McClain wrote: > > - Also, I don't know whether it is possible to downsample images in > > PDF's that you generate from ConTeXt. If it is, avoid it. > >That raises an important question: if downsampling is done, is it >obvious what ConTeXt commands cause it to happen? There's, to my knowledge, no engine in pdfTeX for downsampling images; there certainly be one coded in ConTeXt. Thus, I'd be fairly confident in guessing that it is indeed, fairly obvious, on grounds that there are no commands which do that. > > The printer > > expects CMYK images (not RGB!) where the resolution is approx. 2 times > > the screen count in the final print, @ the physical size on the paper. > > So if you have an image in your PDF that is 10 cms /4 in. wide, and you > > want it printed in a 150 lpi (lines per inch) screen, make sure the > > original resolution is 300 dpi @ 10 cms / 4 in. > >Now that's interesting. I imagined you would get the best results with >images that were designed exactly at the printer resolution. You might, but that would only be true if you also have the image aligned exactly with the printer resolution -- which is unlikely to be the case unless you do it explicitly. Having the 2x-or-higher resolution means that the downsampling in the printing process will produce an acceptable result no matter what the alignment is. Beyond that, I suspect there are also some effects involved in the fact that the printer is creating a screen rather than dots of pure color; there are things going on in the screen that are on a finer scale than the line spacing, and having the higher-resolution to base them on probably produces a better result. - Brooks ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! 2004-07-27 6:33 ` Brooks Moses @ 2004-07-27 9:27 ` Siep Kroonenberg 2004-07-27 11:53 ` George N. White III 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Siep Kroonenberg @ 2004-07-27 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:33:03PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote: > At 11:15 PM 7/26/2004, you wrote: > >On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:21:39PM -0500, Bill McClain wrote: > > >> The printer > >> expects CMYK images (not RGB!) where the resolution is approx. 2 times > >> the screen count in the final print, @ the physical size on the paper. > >> So if you have an image in your PDF that is 10 cms /4 in. wide, and you > >> want it printed in a 150 lpi (lines per inch) screen, make sure the > >> original resolution is 300 dpi @ 10 cms / 4 in. > > > >Now that's interesting. I imagined you would get the best results with > >images that were designed exactly at the printer resolution. > > You might, but that would only be true if you also have the image aligned > exactly with the printer resolution -- which is unlikely to be the case > unless you do it explicitly. Having the 2x-or-higher resolution means that > the downsampling in the printing process will produce an acceptable result > no matter what the alignment is. > > Beyond that, I suspect there are also some effects involved in the fact > that the printer is creating a screen rather than dots of pure color; there > are things going on in the screen that are on a finer scale than the line > spacing, and having the higher-resolution to base them on probably produces > a better result. > > - Brooks For a screened picture, you can often get away with less than twice the lpi, especially if there are no sharp transitions. On the other hand, pure black-and-white line drawings are best printed without screening. For such images, higher resolutions are better. 600dpi is enough for losing jaggies. Up to a point, more is better, but printer resolution (2400dpi or more) would produce very large bitmaps. -- Siep Kroonenberg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! 2004-07-27 6:33 ` Brooks Moses 2004-07-27 9:27 ` Siep Kroonenberg @ 2004-07-27 11:53 ` George N. White III 2004-07-27 15:28 ` Downsampling images in pdfTeX Mats Broberg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: George N. White III @ 2004-07-27 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Brooks Moses wrote: > At 11:15 PM 7/26/2004, you wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:21:39PM -0500, Bill McClain wrote: >>> - Also, I don't know whether it is possible to downsample images in >>> PDF's that you generate from ConTeXt. If it is, avoid it. >> >> That raises an important question: if downsampling is done, is it >> obvious what ConTeXt commands cause it to happen? > > There's, to my knowledge, no engine in pdfTeX for downsampling images; there > certainly be one coded in ConTeXt. Thus, I'd be fairly confident in > guessing that it is indeed, fairly obvious, on grounds that there are no > commands which do that. As a general principle, it makes no sense for pdftex to provide image manipulation capabilities. Such capabilities are useful to a much wider audience than the users of pdftex, so there are lots of tools to do image resampling and format conversions. All that pdftex should do is support inclusion of pdf. The limited support for including png images is a convenience, but if you are being careful you would want to make pdf images. -- George N. White III <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca> Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Downsampling images in pdfTeX 2004-07-27 11:53 ` George N. White III @ 2004-07-27 15:28 ` Mats Broberg 2004-07-27 17:47 ` George N. White III 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Mats Broberg @ 2004-07-27 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw) > From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl > [mailto:ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl] On Behalf Of George N. White III > As a general principle, it makes no sense for pdftex to > provide image manipulation capabilities. Such capabilities > are useful to a much wider > audience than the users of pdftex, so there are lots of tools > to do image resampling and format conversions. All that > pdftex should do is support inclusion of pdf. The limited > support for including png images is a convenience, but if you > are being careful you would want to make pdf images. > > -- > George N. White III <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca> > Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada Having checked the pdfTeX documentation, doesn't the internal parameter \pdfcompresslevel deal with this? The documentation says: "compress level This integer parameter specifies the level of text and in-line graphics compression. pdfTEX uses zip compression as provided by zlib. A value of 0 means no compression, 1 means fastest, 9 means best, 2..8 means something in between. Just set this value to 9, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise - 0 is great for testing macros that use \pdfliteral." Best regards, Mats Broberg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Downsampling images in pdfTeX 2004-07-27 15:28 ` Downsampling images in pdfTeX Mats Broberg @ 2004-07-27 17:47 ` George N. White III 2004-07-27 19:36 ` Vit Zyka 2004-07-28 15:54 ` Peter Münster 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: George N. White III @ 2004-07-27 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Mats Broberg wrote: >> From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl >> [mailto:ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl] On Behalf Of George N. White III > >> As a general principle, it makes no sense for pdftex to >> provide image manipulation capabilities. Such capabilities >> are useful to a much wider >> audience than the users of pdftex, so there are lots of tools >> to do image resampling and format conversions. All that >> pdftex should do is support inclusion of pdf. The limited >> support for including png images is a convenience, but if you >> are being careful you would want to make pdf images. >> >> -- >> George N. White III <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca> >> Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada > > Having checked the pdfTeX documentation, doesn't the internal parameter > \pdfcompresslevel deal with this? The documentation says: > > "compress level This integer parameter specifies the level of text and > in-line graphics compression. pdfTEX uses zip compression as provided by > zlib. A value of 0 means no compression, 1 means fastest, 9 means best, > 2..8 means something in between. Just set this value to 9, unless there > is a good reason to do otherwise - 0 is great for testing macros that > use \pdfliteral." The compression this parameter controls is quite different. Without compression (e.g., \pdfcompresslevel=0) a PDF file consists of almost readable text. Even images can be stored in an ASCII encoding. Setting a non-zero value for \pdfcompresslevel applies a lossless compression algorithm to objects in the pdf file. For images that will be displayed only at low resolution it may be useful to downsample the original image to reduce the size. For example you might have a 2 inch by 2 inch image scanned at 400 dpi. This image would have 800x800 pixels. For screen display you might prefer to have a 200x200 pixel image (or 100 dpi for 2 inches). Downsampling refers to the process of reducing an 800x800 pixel image to 200x200 pixels. ways to reduce image size (lossy compression, colorspace changes, even converting certain images to line art). Some tools to generate PDF include methods to downsample images. In particular, people who have been using tex-->dvipsone-->distiller and are now using just pdftex encounter problems with much larger pdf file sizes and excessive load times until they resize the input images. -- George N. White III <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca> Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Downsampling images in pdfTeX 2004-07-27 17:47 ` George N. White III @ 2004-07-27 19:36 ` Vit Zyka 2004-07-28 15:54 ` Peter Münster 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Vit Zyka @ 2004-07-27 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw) >> Having checked the pdfTeX documentation, doesn't the internal parameter >> \pdfcompresslevel deal with this? The documentation says: >> >> "compress level This integer parameter specifies the level of text and >> in-line graphics compression. pdfTEX uses zip compression as provided by >> zlib. A value of 0 means no compression, 1 means fastest, 9 means best, >> 2..8 means something in between. Just set this value to 9, unless there >> is a good reason to do otherwise - 0 is great for testing macros that >> use \pdfliteral." > > > The compression this parameter controls is quite different. Without > compression (e.g., \pdfcompresslevel=0) a PDF file consists of almost > readable text. Even images can be stored in an ASCII encoding. Setting > a non-zero value for \pdfcompresslevel applies a lossless compression > algorithm to objects in the pdf file. For exactness. Primitive \pdfcompresslevel influences lossless compression of 1) content of pdf objects 2) included PNG images (they are decoded and encoded again) In case of inclusion of PDF, it is put as it is (so compresslevel is not changed). JPG is also untouched. It was valid for pdfTeX version <1.0. I have no info about changes in this case. Vit Zyka ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Downsampling images in pdfTeX 2004-07-27 17:47 ` George N. White III 2004-07-27 19:36 ` Vit Zyka @ 2004-07-28 15:54 ` Peter Münster 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Peter Münster @ 2004-07-28 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, George N. White III wrote: > For images that will be displayed only at low resolution it may be useful > to downsample the original image to reduce the size. For example you > might have a 2 inch by 2 inch image scanned at 400 dpi. This image would > have 800x800 pixels. For screen display you might prefer to have a > 200x200 pixel image (or 100 dpi for 2 inches). Downsampling refers > to the process of reducing an 800x800 pixel image to 200x200 pixels. > ways to reduce image size (lossy compression, colorspace changes, > even converting certain images to line art). Quite soon, I'm going to convert the degrade LaTeX-package (CTAN: graphics/degrade) to ConTeXt. It permits to down-sample JPEG images on the fly to a given resolution. Cheers, Peter -- http://pmrb.free.fr/contact/ _____________________________________ FilmSearch engine: http://f-s.sf.net/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! 2004-07-27 6:15 ` ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! Matt Gushee 2004-07-27 6:33 ` Brooks Moses @ 2004-07-27 7:36 ` Tobias Hilbricht 2004-07-27 11:47 ` Bill McClain 2004-07-27 15:51 ` Mats Broberg 3 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Tobias Hilbricht @ 2004-07-27 7:36 UTC (permalink / raw) Am Di, den 27.07.2004 schrieb Matt Gushee um 08:15: > they think that PDF > means "Adobe PDF"--i.e. they believe that Adobe software is *the* way to > produce PDF, and are mostly unaware that there is such a thing as a PDF > standard. Now, I don't fully understand the issue, but apparently Adobe > software doesn't entirely follow the published specs, whereas TeX does. > And some processing software seems to be designed specifically to work > with the quirks of Acrobat output, and sometimes has trouble with PDFTeX > output. This is also true if you want to publish advertisements in journals - the journals/newspapers often require PDF prepared by Adobe Acrobat / Distiller. If you provide advertisements prepared by other means then it is your fault if something goes wrong. This is despite the PDF/X3 standard for preprint ready PDF documents. For this reason the claim of some commercial TeX-vendors to produce PDF which comes closer to the "quirks of Acrobat output" is not worth so much in practice. However, when you prepare documents for print regularly, then it is anyway best to have "your own" printer locally at hand - somebody you can trust and who wants to keep you as a customer. Then you can deal with problems arising and talk about solutions directly. So far I did not encounter problems with PDFs made by PDFTeX, but then I gave only documents to print in black and white or with colours where it does not matter if the red or blue is slightly brighter or darker. I dont know about printing-experiences of PDFTeX-prepared documents with colour separation, spot colours, trapping ... in conjunction with various media (glossy/matte paper ...) where it becomes more difficult. Yours sincerely Tobias Hilbricht ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! 2004-07-27 6:15 ` ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! Matt Gushee 2004-07-27 6:33 ` Brooks Moses 2004-07-27 7:36 ` ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! Tobias Hilbricht @ 2004-07-27 11:47 ` Bill McClain 2004-07-27 15:51 ` Mats Broberg 3 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Bill McClain @ 2004-07-27 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ntg-context On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:15:09 -0600 Matt Gushee <mgushee@havenrock.com> wrote: > > Different shops might have different requirements, but Bookmobile > > simply requires an exact image of the book, page size defined to be > > the paper size. Easy. > > You're referring to just the interior, right? I would think that > covers have to have a bit of bleed, no? For the front and back covers I've just used the interior paper size. Given a page count the printer specifies the spine width, and perhaps they allow a little exapansion there? For the cover I create a single PDF file with the panels joined as so: back|spine|front -Bill -- Sattre Press Pagan Papers http://sattre-press.com/ by Kenneth Grahame info@sattre-press.com http://sattre-press.com/pp.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* RE: ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! 2004-07-27 6:15 ` ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! Matt Gushee ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2004-07-27 11:47 ` Bill McClain @ 2004-07-27 15:51 ` Mats Broberg 3 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Mats Broberg @ 2004-07-27 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw) > From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl > [mailto:ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl] On Behalf Of Matt Gushee > Well, yes. Many printers here do prefer PDF. However, there's > a small problem in some cases--I know this is true for > Kinko's, and was wondering if it's true for regular printers, > too: they think that PDF means "Adobe PDF"--i.e. they believe > that Adobe software is *the* way to produce PDF, and are > mostly unaware that there is such a thing as a PDF standard. > Now, I don't fully understand the issue, but apparently Adobe > software doesn't entirely follow the published specs, whereas > TeX does. And some processing software seems to be designed > specifically to work with the quirks of Acrobat output, and > sometimes has trouble with PDFTeX output. At one of the company I work for, we generate thousands of press-ready PDF manuals (250+ pp each) every year that are generated from XML source using XEP from RenderX - with no problems at all. So I don't think it is a requirement for printers that the PDF files are generated using Adobe tools. > Now that's interesting. I imagined you would get the best > results with images that were designed exactly at the printer > resolution. True, for line art - but the "exactness" is unimportant. A common imagesetter resolution is 2540 lpi, so you may want to create your line art in that resolution. However, most printers prefer 1200 dpi (but not less) for line art, since images with a higher resolution become so large (memory-wise). Regarding halftones (color or grayscale), the commercial printing community rule-of-thumb is a resolution about 2 times the screen count. If your image is 10 cm wide on the scanner and you want it to be 10 cm wide on the paper, and you want the printer use a screen of 150 lpi, scan it at an optical resolution of 300 dpi. However, as I mentioned before, this holds true only if the physical image size and the final image size are the same. If the image is 5 cm wide on the scanner and you want it to be 10 cms wide on the paper, you need to scan it with a resolution of 600 dpi. Never increase the resolution of an already scanned image using software interpolation. Regarding using a higher resolution than 2-2.5 times the screen count, try to avoid it, since the photomechanical laws of process engraving doesn't give you a better final image anyway. However, pls note that I am talking about conventional lito offset here, and that I am talking about a conventional screen technology (amplitude-modulated screening). If you are using waterless lito offset, the screen count is usually quite a bit higher (300-500 lpi are not uncommon), which requires higher resolutions. Also, if you are using a different screening technology - e.g. frequency-modulated screening, or a hybride screening - your images may need to be of a higher resolution too. Talk to your printer. Best regards, Mats Broberg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-07-28 15:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-07-24 19:41 ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses Matt Gushee 2004-07-24 20:21 ` Bill McClain 2004-07-24 20:25 ` Siep Kroonenberg 2004-07-25 9:57 ` Henning Hraban Ramm 2004-07-25 10:01 ` Mats Broberg 2004-07-25 11:58 ` Adam Lindsay 2004-07-25 12:03 ` Mats Broberg 2004-07-27 6:15 ` ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! Matt Gushee 2004-07-27 6:33 ` Brooks Moses 2004-07-27 9:27 ` Siep Kroonenberg 2004-07-27 11:53 ` George N. White III 2004-07-27 15:28 ` Downsampling images in pdfTeX Mats Broberg 2004-07-27 17:47 ` George N. White III 2004-07-27 19:36 ` Vit Zyka 2004-07-28 15:54 ` Peter Münster 2004-07-27 7:36 ` ConTeXt output & commercial printing houses: Thanks! Tobias Hilbricht 2004-07-27 11:47 ` Bill McClain 2004-07-27 15:51 ` Mats Broberg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).