Prev: DDWFTTW Sniping Girlymen
Next: pulse response overshoot in a follower configuration
From: Tim Williams on 9 Aug 2010 21:30
"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:6o1166d75alb1rklirkm5pdhe5lbv2j1q1(a)4ax.com...
> Hammond seems to be able to get animations in their PS files.
>
> http://www.hammondmfg.com/pdf/1590B.pdf

Hmm, doesn't work in Foxit Reader. Assuming it was supposed to do
something...

I've seen some, I assume, really dreadfully written PDFs before. CPU sits
at 100% for minutes on end, nothing seems to be happening. Zoom in and
it's painstakingly reproducing every pixel of every dot of a high
resolution halftone pattern in some image.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms


From: Don Lancaster on 9 Aug 2010 23:26
On 8/9/2010 3:26 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
>
> I mean, I would be more impressed if the video itself were PS. You can do
> 3D drawings, so what about the 4th dimension--time? You should be able to
> write that whole thing in about 22kB of PS. ;^)

We do have some rather stunning full resolution PostScript animation at
< http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pdfanim.pdf >


>
> Speaking of MP4, it's ironic that such small PS files are rasterized, then
> JPEG compressed. They look truely terrible. It would be neat if you
> could encapsulate PS inside an MP4 stream. MP4 is a stream container, but
> it's not specified for PS content, is it?
>

Our primary goal here was to make a classic video newly available to the
widest possible audience as a historical record.

Yes, MP4 resolution totally sucks. And it was quite a challenge to get
the images even as good as they are. Some of the details appear in
< http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu10.asp >

Part of the problem was that the original master was lost by the video
company and we had to work from an extended play VHS copy.

Possibly we should not have originally used an off-season video house
that specialized in movies of people falling off horses. But at the
time, anything else was outrageously expensive.

> On a tangentially related subject, Don, I don't suppose you know of
> programs (or scripts) good for converting vector graphics formats, like
> for instance Paint Shop files? All the ones I've seen create a raster
> image. Eugh.
>
> Tim
>

Acrobat 9 can do much of this at amazingly high quality.
If you need to, you can print to disk to get back to PostScript.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don(a)tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
From: Nobody on 10 Aug 2010 00:27
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:26:03 -0500, Tim Williams wrote:

> There are standards for variable quality, scalable, streamable images,
> like JPEG2000, which perhaps could be integrated with vector media like PS
> and SVG. I suppose it'll be several decades before we get a video format,
> and the computational power to encode and decode it, which can do all
> these things, in four dimensions. 3D vector animations with "unlimited"
> resolution will be pretty fuckin sweet when it gets here, though...

For 2D, SVG can be animated with embedded JavaScript (works in current
Firefox; I haven't tried anything else).

For 3D, there's WebGL, but that's currently rather bleeding-edge (i.e. you
need a "snapshot" build of Firefox, Chrome or Safari, and some features
will be missing or broken).

> On a tangentially related subject, Don, I don't suppose you know of
> programs (or scripts) good for converting vector graphics formats, like
> for instance Paint Shop files? All the ones I've seen create a raster
> image. Eugh.

Unless I already know of a better way, my default approach is to "print"
to a PostScript printer using "Print to File", then (unless I want
PostScript) use Ghostscript to convert to PDF, SVG or CGM. The main
downside is that it tends to lose structure (in the worst case, text
may end up with each letter as a distinct object).

From: Robert Baer on 10 Aug 2010 01:09
Tim Williams wrote:
> That's not PS, that's MP4...........
>
> Tim
>
Maybe you can read, but...comprehend? NO.
From: Robert Baer on 10 Aug 2010 01:10
Don Lancaster wrote:
> On 8/9/2010 1:43 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
>> That's not PS, that's MP4...........
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
>
> No, our regular web host does not have enough bandwidth or the correct
> software to real time serve multiple video watchers. They are working on
> alternatives.
>
> And, of course, all of the stills were done with PostScript.
>
>
Thank you for making my point concerning comprehension..
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: DDWFTTW Sniping Girlymen
Next: pulse response overshoot in a follower configuration