little resolution in WMF

Discuss functionality of QuarkXPress 10, 9 & 8 (and before) (excluding Digital Publishing).
For Digital Publishing functionality please refer to forums in the "Digital Publishing" group.

As QuarkXPress 1 thru 10 are not supported by Quark anymore, please upgrade to a newer version of QuarkXPress if you are looking for official support. Support options for supported versions are here: http://support.quark.com
Post Reply
manoli
Posts: 4
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 14:00

little resolution in WMF

Post by manoli » 19 Jan 2009, 07:08

The problem is that when I import images in vector format, type WMF (metafile), the resolution of the images is ridiculous, that is to say, pixels (with steps) appears, when in fact to the being a vector format should appreciate you independently with a stupendous resolution of the zoom. When those same files import them in Word, they are perfect.Does somebody have idea that it can be happening?For if it serves, I use QuarkXpress 8SPANISH :El problema es que cuando importo imgenes en formato vectorial, tipo WMF (metarchivo), la resolucin de las imgenes es ridcula, es decir, aparecen pixeladas (con escalones), cuando en realidad al ser un formato vectorial se deberan de apreciar con una resolucin estupenda independientemente del zoom. Cuando esos mismos archivos los importo en Word, quedan perfectos. Alguien tiene idea de que puede estar pasando ?Por si sirve, utilizo el QuarkXpress 8

migman
Posts: 2936
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 16:17

little resolution in WMF

Post by migman » 19 Jan 2009, 12:33

The image you see in Quark is just a preview. Its there to help you position it on the page. Its not the image itself, just a placeholder. When you print, the data from the actual image is sent to the printer, and not the preview that you see in Quark. However, if you print to a non-PostScript printer, Quark won't be able to send the PostScript data from the Vector image, so it will send the preview. To print to a non-PostScript printer, save the Quark file as a PDF, and print the PDF to the printer.
P.S. If you need the image to look better in order to position it, select it and go to Item>Preview Resolution>Full Resolution. It may not look as good as it does in its native application though.

ablock
Posts: 12
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 11:29

little resolution in WMF

Post by ablock » 02 Mar 2009, 04:45

I use line art in .eps extensively throughout my documents. In order to create a low res pdf document I have to change all of the files to .wmf. When I do this the graphics either do not show up at all in the box, or it is just a handfull of lines. [strong]The Full Resolution preview does absolutely nothing! [/strong]When I print it to a pdf then, the graphics do show up correctly, the only way around this problem is to start with another format of the graphic and replace it with the .wmf in the exact same position. Since you can not see enough of the graphic on the screen to position it.

charlieartist
Posts: 268
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 16:14

little resolution in WMF

Post by charlieartist » 02 Mar 2009, 05:00

Is your line art vector or bitmap-based? If it is bitmapped, and you aren't doing some non-standard color work such as duotones, why not just convert all the EPS art to TIFF? This is platform-independent, and should take care of your problems. It will only be an issue of selecting output quality when printing or creating PDFs. You won't need to replace all the art...

ablock
Posts: 12
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 11:29

little resolution in WMF

Post by ablock » 02 Mar 2009, 05:33

All of the graphics are vector based. How would I convert the .eps to .tif without still replacing all of the art? It is not a web based document so the export feature is not available? I will try anything to get around this issue.
As an example. Using one of my pages in my document that has several graphics. When I export directly out of Quark8.0(with the eps files) the file size is 5.4 mb, when I print it out and use Acrobate Distiller it is 1 mb, when I save the document as 7.0, change the graphics to wmf and print it out and use distiller, it is 350k (using .bmp files make it even small, but the quality isn't as good as the .wmf). I have to create the pdf in 7.0 as 8.0 adds a bunch of extra lines to all the wmfgraphics now.I use Adobe Illustrator to export the files from .eps to .wmf.
Can you add any more suggestions?

Slickriptide
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 16:30

little resolution in WMF

Post by Slickriptide » 02 Mar 2009, 10:11

You have Illustrator and Distiller. Do you also have Photoshop and Acrobat or Acrobat Professional?
Photoshop (or whatever your raster art program happens to be) will be your tool of choice for converting EPS files to TIFF files.
I don't understand why you are so adamant about making the file size small. It seems like you are going to a lot of unneccesary work just to save a couple of megabytes of hard disk space. You say that the document is not web based. Do you mean that it's not a web layout in Quark Xpress or do you literally mean that you are not going to distribute the PDF on the internet? If you have no plans to use the web to distribute the file, what difference does it make how big it is?
If you own Adobe Acrobat, what version do you own? Acrobat 6 and up (I can't speak to earlier versions) has optimization tools that make a lot more sense than doing the kind of work you're currently doing.
To sum up - If you plan to print the document, then big is usually better than small and there's no need for the hand optimizations. If you plan to make it downloadable on the Internet, then Acrobat itself has tools to do the optimization job and will do it better because it will take care of the graphics AND it will make it so that the PDF can be loaded one page at a time when viewed by a web browser.

ablock
Posts: 12
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 11:29

little resolution in WMF

Post by ablock » 02 Mar 2009, 10:57

I have Photoshop and Acrobat 8.0. The reason we require our pdfs to be small is that they are use via email, besides being available for download on our website. With traveling reps on wireless laptops, the files have to be small and good quality. The process I go through gives me that.I am just trying to find out if there is a better option.
The graphics are created in autocad (dwg) format, I change them in Illustrator to an .eps file that is sent with my document to the printer, and at the same time I export the .wmf that I will use to create the .pdf file with the document isdone.
I used the standard Quark export to create my entire document in .pdf (using the .eps) files and it finished at 1100 mb. I opened it in Acrobat and compressed it down with their toolsto 13mb. Doing it the way I described earlier I can get it down to 4 mb. I can not email a 13 mb file to our reps, but a 4 mb is reasonable. I can't imagine using a Tif format over a wmf format would make it smaller. The graphics are in .eps so if resizing bigger is ever needed, its no problem, I can't do that with a .tif format.
All of my documents are created for print and in a print layout to answer your question.I appreciate your comments and hope that I can find a better option.

charlieartist
Posts: 268
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 16:14

little resolution in WMF

Post by charlieartist » 02 Mar 2009, 11:00

And, to add to slickriptide:If there are plenty of detailed vectors, it is unsurprising that the file size may seem a bit large. The same thing would happen if you converted large areas of type to outlines.If you are concerned about image quality, slickriptide's advice is right on. Unless you have a 50MB+ file you are trying to distribute, I wouldn't be too concerned...

Slickriptide
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 16:30

little resolution in WMF

Post by Slickriptide » 02 Mar 2009, 12:01

If you got it down to 13mb, that's doing pretty well. Unless your salespeople are downloading the files over a dial-up line in front of the customers, I can't really imagine that 13mb is really all that horrible compared to 4mb. If they're using any kind of high-speed internet then 13mb is nothing at all.
If it's a limitation imposed by your email service, I'd say "get a new email service" but that's just me. *heh* You may not really have that option.
Well, as to the original question, the conversion between DWG -> EPS -> WMF is probably losing a lot of information along the way. Knowing the "loco" way that Windows handles such things, my guess is that your WMF file(s) with the "blocky" look are not really vector files. They have been rasterized at some point and the raster image embedded into the WMF, much the way that a Photoshop EPS is really nothing more than a raster picture with an EPS wrapper around it. It may have the filetype of a vector file but the content inside isn't actually vector at all. This could happen if WMF didn't support some feature of the original DWG file or its EPS conversion, and Illustrator just silently turned it into a raster image and stuck that inside the WMF.
The alternative explantion, since you say that MS Word displays the WMF filescorrectly, is that Acrobat Reader (or whatever viewer you are using) doesn't understand WMF format and is displaying and scaling the rasterized preview instead. In that case, you'll just have to bite the bullet and send those 13mb files, I'm afraid.
The only other option I can see is to convert the EPS files to JPEG and compress them down to around 30% or so. That may degrade your images to the point that they're unacceptable. Tiff's are still an option, if you create them in Photoshop and choose LZW compression when you create them. It may or may not rival the JPEG file compression. You lose the nice scaling, of course, so that may still be a non-viable option given your parameters.
All in all, I'd say the answer is "use the EPS files and deal with the extra bandwidth". "Downsampling" to WMF format is a lot like converting a JPEG to a GIF. With some pictures you won't notice the difference, and you'll save on color space, but you also lose out on fuctionality and things that manipulate pictures are not going to treat a GIF the same way they treat a JPEG despite the pictures looking alike.

Post Reply

Return to “QuarkXPress 8, 9 & 10: General”