Adobe Illustrator
- Thread starter LoudMusic
- 28 comments
- 744 views
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
I've had to dabble in vector graphics using Macromedia's Freehand, Flash and Illustrator. I found Macromedia's programs to be more intuitive, but I'm also used to their interface and standards, finding myself going "Arg* alot with Illustrator.
Oh and Loud......can you put a shirt on? Your skins just too darn bright man...just kidding...but seriously, or atleast turn down your monitor.
Oh and Loud......can you put a shirt on? Your skins just too darn bright man...just kidding...but seriously, or atleast turn down your monitor.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
LoudMusic,
Do you get to work with print, or have access to pro-quality printers with your company? I was just curious, vector graphics are awesome for print, as there is no resolution limitations to the graphics, just the printer....but at what resolution do normally have bitmap images to insure good print? Is 1200 dpi suffecient or do the pros that know, work with higher resolutions? I know that the deminsions of the print job has a barring, but in general...what resolutions do they work with on NON-Vector graphics...
Sorry for babbling...the coffee hasn't kicked in yet...
Do you get to work with print, or have access to pro-quality printers with your company? I was just curious, vector graphics are awesome for print, as there is no resolution limitations to the graphics, just the printer....but at what resolution do normally have bitmap images to insure good print? Is 1200 dpi suffecient or do the pros that know, work with higher resolutions? I know that the deminsions of the print job has a barring, but in general...what resolutions do they work with on NON-Vector graphics...
Sorry for babbling...the coffee hasn't kicked in yet...
- 4,590
I had heard that 300 dpi was good for printing. When we do ads for flyers or books the printers always want a 300 dpi image.
- 10,687
- Everywhere
Actually, those crazy high resolutions are pointless. The human eye doesn't see much above 300dpi, so we tend to use 400. That's what our printers do anyway.
We have two Canon 1180 color copiers each attached to their own Fiery RIP (rasterized image processor) with an Ultra SCSI adapter. The specs on speed are pointless for our use, but they do something in the range of 35 color copies (or prints) per minute. That's hella fast by the way.
They print high enough quality for us to use on a lot of our client jobs. That's why we purchased two.
We also have an Epson 2000P 'professional photo printer'. It's nice, but really damn slow. It takes about 10 minutes to make one 8.5" x 11" print.
And yes, vector graphics are THE BOMB. I was going through our image repository on the server yesterday ... they've got some really cool stuff (:
~LoudMusic
We have two Canon 1180 color copiers each attached to their own Fiery RIP (rasterized image processor) with an Ultra SCSI adapter. The specs on speed are pointless for our use, but they do something in the range of 35 color copies (or prints) per minute. That's hella fast by the way.
They print high enough quality for us to use on a lot of our client jobs. That's why we purchased two.
We also have an Epson 2000P 'professional photo printer'. It's nice, but really damn slow. It takes about 10 minutes to make one 8.5" x 11" print.
And yes, vector graphics are THE BOMB. I was going through our image repository on the server yesterday ... they've got some really cool stuff (:
~LoudMusic
- 10,687
- Everywhere
Yeah, that's about right. When I worked at the newspaper they did black and white at 300 and color at 170.
It's not so much the dpi of the image, but rather the quality of the paper and ink/toner that you're putting on it. There is a thing called "dot gain", basically how much the ink bleeds into other colors that makes a huge difference. That's controlled by the paper and the ink ... and I suppose the process that it's applied.
~LoudMusic
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Hey, thanks for putting on the shirt LoudMusic, :thumbsup:
Anyways..., doesn't higher resolutions for larger pictures provided better clarity and definition when printing (up to the capacity of the printer) or are you still limited to the eyes capacity for detail at 300dpi?
Anyways..., doesn't higher resolutions for larger pictures provided better clarity and definition when printing (up to the capacity of the printer) or are you still limited to the eyes capacity for detail at 300dpi?
- 10,687
- Everywhere
Well think about it this way. For sound we only record up to a certain kHz and kbit. From there on it's rather pointless and wasteful because we can't even hear that much sound. It's the same with the color range. We can't see more than about 32bit color. Some people claim they can tell a difference between 32 and 64 bit ... but I think they're full of themselves (:
The reason to store an image at higher resolution than 300dpi would be if you want to enlarge it later. Basically a printed dot is a displayed pixel. The more you have, the more flexibility you have.
Also, programs like Photoshop treat more pixels differently when you apply filters or resize images. When I make 100 x 100 px avatars I generally start with the largest image I can find. That way when I manipulate it Photoshop does a much cleaner crisper job. When I downsize it the image looks better than if I had manipulated it as a smaller image. There is less information at that point, and thus less to work with for clairity.
But as far as printing goes ... 300 dpi is about the industry standard. Keeping in mind that most people don't even refer to dpi. The standards are based in "line screen", or lines per inch. I'm not exactly sure how that works, but it has to do with the way a press lays the ink, and how the press plates were burned from negatives. I actually did all that for nearly a year - maybe I should have payed closer attention (:
~LoudMusic
The reason to store an image at higher resolution than 300dpi would be if you want to enlarge it later. Basically a printed dot is a displayed pixel. The more you have, the more flexibility you have.
Also, programs like Photoshop treat more pixels differently when you apply filters or resize images. When I make 100 x 100 px avatars I generally start with the largest image I can find. That way when I manipulate it Photoshop does a much cleaner crisper job. When I downsize it the image looks better than if I had manipulated it as a smaller image. There is less information at that point, and thus less to work with for clairity.
But as far as printing goes ... 300 dpi is about the industry standard. Keeping in mind that most people don't even refer to dpi. The standards are based in "line screen", or lines per inch. I'm not exactly sure how that works, but it has to do with the way a press lays the ink, and how the press plates were burned from negatives. I actually did all that for nearly a year - maybe I should have payed closer attention (:
~LoudMusic
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
I just did an interesting test.... I made a simple circle, printed black and white on my laser. All the same size, all 300x300 pixels with print sizes set to 2"x2"... with three different resolutions with the following results:
50ppi - very blocky, dimension text under graphic unreadable.
300ppi - smooth text, but still visiblly jagged on the circle.
1200ppi - completely smooth, not one square pixel in site.
I'll run some further tests at 400, 500, and 600 as well and report my findings...
~Later~
50ppi - very blocky, dimension text under graphic unreadable.
300ppi - smooth text, but still visiblly jagged on the circle.
1200ppi - completely smooth, not one square pixel in site.
I'll run some further tests at 400, 500, and 600 as well and report my findings...
~Later~
- 10,687
- Everywhere
What kind of printer do you have? It also might be interperating the ppi differently between the application and the hardware, giving you strange results. If there isn't an easy ratio (like 2:1) where it can adjust the image to suite the printer, you'll get some strange output.
~LoudMusic
~LoudMusic
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Interesting.... That's kind of what I've come accross as well, but most of my graphical endevours have been on the monitor, with very little ink being splashed onto paper. So for a 8x10 printed picture, your gonna want at least 300 dpi, which is a total of 24,000 dots. Now if you shrunk down the image to 4x5 but maintained the number of dots, your image would be at a 1200dpi... Do you think this is how it works for some of the graphic programs, thus resulting in "crisper" images?
- 4,590
My :2cents:
So thats why my digital camera has a setting of 1600x1200 (3:2) so it can retain the information of 1600x1200 but print or view a smaller image. Lots of info in a smaller package. Neat feature for printing. I don't know if you guys ever printed out a 1600x1200 image but its pretty big!!
- 10,687
- Everywhere
1600x1200 is the measurement for the number of dots x the number of dots. It depends on what area you are squeezing them into for the quality of image that you get.
And to Pako ... yeah pretty much. You have a certain number of pixels (dots). DPI is defined by how much area you are squeezing them all into.
I have 3 HP 4000 series printers at work. They're great for regular text documents, but they're not real great for picture quality. From what I remember, they do some nasty foo to get them to print pictures at "1200 dpi". What they're calling 1200 dpi isn't really that. It's kind of like hard drive manufacturers call an 80gb drive 80gb when it's really 74.5gb. They're using a different scale to achive better marketting.
LIES I TELL YOU, IT'S ALL A BUNCH OF LIES!
~LoudMusic
- 4,590
Here's another question..
If you take a digital photo at lets say 1600x1200 .jpeg and a .tiff image, then what format is gonna give you the best quality for printing? I have done both and know what the results are but was also wondering if it makes a difference weather the printer is an ink jet or laser? I haven't tried printing a .tiff image on the laser yet.
Give me your thoughts. . .
If you take a digital photo at lets say 1600x1200 .jpeg and a .tiff image, then what format is gonna give you the best quality for printing? I have done both and know what the results are but was also wondering if it makes a difference weather the printer is an ink jet or laser? I haven't tried printing a .tiff image on the laser yet.
Give me your thoughts. . .
- 10,687
- Everywhere
Well tiffs are by far going to be better quality, but they're also larger files.
JPEG is "lossy compression" which means you lose a little bit of the data when you compress the image in jpeg format. TIFF just stores all the image data and doesn't try to compress it.
Well, once again, it depends on what kind of ink printer and what kind of lazer printer. You're not going to find any home ink printer that's going to print worth a damn. The one my company owns was $800 and I'm not totally happy with the results. A few of my friends have the Epson 1280 and claim in makes them happy.
And as far as laser goes ... from my experience laser doesn't do photos very well, but they do illustrations extremely well. Solid colors and "digital art" come out beautiful, but photos are usually dulled and appear to be out of focus. Laser is also going to be about 50 times as expensive.
~LoudMusic
JPEG is "lossy compression" which means you lose a little bit of the data when you compress the image in jpeg format. TIFF just stores all the image data and doesn't try to compress it.
Well, once again, it depends on what kind of ink printer and what kind of lazer printer. You're not going to find any home ink printer that's going to print worth a damn. The one my company owns was $800 and I'm not totally happy with the results. A few of my friends have the Epson 1280 and claim in makes them happy.
And as far as laser goes ... from my experience laser doesn't do photos very well, but they do illustrations extremely well. Solid colors and "digital art" come out beautiful, but photos are usually dulled and appear to be out of focus. Laser is also going to be about 50 times as expensive.
~LoudMusic
- 10,687
- Everywhere
This is the color copier / printer that I have two of.
It's rather bad ass. We don't have the sorter on ours though - most of our prints are one page. We really don't use them for copies all that much either. We've attached them each to their own ColorPASS-Z650 color RIP.
Basically a print server so all the computers in the building can print to it.
~LoudMusic
It's rather bad ass. We don't have the sorter on ours though - most of our prints are one page. We really don't use them for copies all that much either. We've attached them each to their own ColorPASS-Z650 color RIP.
Basically a print server so all the computers in the building can print to it.
~LoudMusic
- 10,687
- Everywhere
Apx 25 Macintosh G4s and Apx 35 Dell Dimention desktops. I've also got seven servers each doing their own thing, and eight b/w laser printers.
But the most important aspect of all the hardware, is the people that use it on a daily basis. Knowing the hardware and software is where the money is, but my time is almost all spent with the users.
But that's WAAAAAYYYY off topic. Has anyone had a chance to mess with Illustrator or Freehand (or is it Fireworks?) ? Vector art is fun (:
~LoudMusic
But the most important aspect of all the hardware, is the people that use it on a daily basis. Knowing the hardware and software is where the money is, but my time is almost all spent with the users.
But that's WAAAAAYYYY off topic. Has anyone had a chance to mess with Illustrator or Freehand (or is it Fireworks?) ? Vector art is fun (:
~LoudMusic
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
, yes just a little... Perhaps I should have asked, "How many workstations use Adobe Illustrator installed, and is it a core program your business?"Speaking of...
How many workstations use Adobe Illustrator installed, and is it a core program your business?
- 4,590
As far as the laser goes, I'm using a Xerox Phaser 8200 which uses a crayon type of ink. It's cool because it makes a glossey print on plain paper so there is no need to use glossey paper. Big cost savings!! I'm still trying to get the photo's to look good and thats why I ask about the .tiff image quality. I'm going to take some test prints in the .tiff format and post the results later.
