On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:01:32 -0700, in alt.binaries.crafts.pictures
Herb <Herb@the.herb.garden> wrote:
>hopper wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:48:23 -0500, in alt.binaries.crafts.pictures
>> SimplyMe wrote:
>>
>> <<<<<<<graphics only>>>>>>>
>>
>> G'Day Frank.. in the spirit of sharing a common interest.
>> Some feedback you may take on board in "growing"?
>>
>> None of the guys.n.gals here doing REQs for digi.work are
>> using tools that allow import of vector images.
>
>ClickNStitch will import anbd use .cdr, .cmx, .eps, .ai, .wmf, and
>.emf,but not .svg. But I'm pretty sure that uses the embedded bitmap
>preview. It can also use .tif and a variety of other bitmap formats -
>surprisingly, NOT including .png. .png and .svg may be too new for
>this older program.
>
I haven't opened C&S in a very long time, Herb.
I was running from memory of 'testing' stuff, years ago.
Interesting those are all variations on a metafile, or what I would
recognise as a raw image format.
>Artista is much more limited in what graphic formats it can use, but
>it can use .wmf and .emf. I'm not sure if it uses the fairly simple
>vector information or the embedded bitmap.
>
>I haven't opened Wilcom in a very long time, but I think that it uses
>some vector formats directly. Corel DraWings certainly does.
>
>> Being as much as I can determine from observation.
>> The tools used all rastorise - if you like - the image to a 16 colour
>> bitmap - at best. No way can an import result in the two
>> colour bitmap you supply in all good faith.
>
>There's no problem with using two-color bitmaps.
>
>> Graphics quality is all important to the "auto-digi" user and having
>> an image of the quality you present (stuff up with the L aside)
>> is an excellent place to start, however in the final 'wash' it is
>> _how_ the digi person applies input to the image that makes it work.
>
>> I have attached the sewing output for your image from the file LFW
>> produced. A look at that may shed more light on this then I am able to
>> explain, briefly.
>
>In this case it has more to do with the digitization used than the
>image. I don't know what Lookin4Wendy used; attached is a CNS version
>directly from SimplyMe's .tif file. No changes and no tweaking at all
>(other than selecting a size).
>
Most interesting, Herb.
>> For best results it may be worth looking at supplying graphics
>> in the *.bmp format so as to avoid an end users need to convert
>> these either on import or as another task in preparing the work.
>
>Personally, the image format doesn't matter to me at all. 99% of the
>time I have to edit the image in one way or another anyway (usually
>using Paint Shop Pro), and can then output it to whatever format is
>convenient.
>
/nods
Nor I.. and in this case I searched the origins and built mine own
from that.
As the detail demonstrates.
>FWIW, I did this logo by digitizing the Owl (as found on-line - not
>the one the OP supplied) in CNS, then opening the resulting .hus file
>in Artista to add the lettering.
>
> - Herb
>
Got it.. like myself, a "ten minute jobby", no less :-)
.. thanks for the feedback Herb
cheers
|
|