Joined: Nov 28, 2005 Posts: 299 Location: Near Frankfurt/M. Germany
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:10 am Post subject:
Tried with a few .wmfs from openclipart. They look really good, I did not try printing yet, but on screen: just beautiful. Scaling is no prob - really fine and very much preferable to .pngs at least as far as scaling is concerned. The only bad thing is size: the wmfs I saw are at a comparable size with .svg graphics (about between 3 and 10 times as much as a .png). Perhaps I would vote for quality, although this means bigger downloads.
T.
But what about .wmf? That would be vector too. Perhaps I ll try some in the next days - if not somebody already has tried .wmf with neo and can add some words about that here. Critical points are in my opinion: Size of files, possibility to view on screen (wysiwyg), and possibilities of scaling and the look of scaled pics in NeoDocuments.
A few notes about WMF from my experience/experimentation:
* Like Mac PICTs, they can be either vector or raster, so you need to make sure you have vector WMFs to begin with if they're your original format
* There aren't that many software packages that convert foo->WMF because it's a proprietary MS format, and the main F/OSS library that handles WMF turns vector WMF into bitmaps.
* Adobe Illustrator (at least v10 that I have) does a sucky job saving things as WMFs; the image becomes a half-vector, half-raster hybrid that looks bad.
So, if you don't have vector WMF as your originals, you run into almost the same problem as SVG...lots of work to get decent output that Neo can use...
Orgleser wrote:
Tried with a few .wmfs from openclipart. They look really good, I did not try printing yet, but on screen: just beautiful. Scaling is no prob - really fine and very much preferable to .pngs at least as far as scaling is concerned. The only bad thing is size: the wmfs I saw are at a comparable size with .svg graphics (about between 3 and 10 times as much as a .png). Perhaps I would vote for quality, although this means bigger downloads.
Sounds like the PNGs you're using in comparison are not really good enough quality to be used in printed output. I only have a few WMFs, but even the most complex ones are only about 20 KB, which is about the same size as the lovely Pumpkin SVG that comes with Seashore's SVG importer
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Oh, one other note: if you can't find someone more qualified (a command-line whiz)--or if you end up putting the files in a global location that the Mac OS X Installer can access with its built-in functionality--I'd be willing to put in some cycles on the installer issue.
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Joined: Nov 28, 2005 Posts: 299 Location: Near Frankfurt/M. Germany
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:37 am Post subject:
After Smokeys recent comment on format, especially on .wmf, I change my mind and vote for .png for the cliparts, .jpg for fotos, too.
Sorry that it took so much time to convince me
Time for the editing, folks. I've set up a second page here, where I will lob catalogues of the artwork, folder by folder [or theme by theme]. I've got rid of sub-directories in the various folders, so there are now these folders only:
I am using GIMP to [a] reduce the size to 550x(less than 500) or below [b] flatten the svg's, removing transparency [c] save as png. Working OK so far, only a couple of non-readables. The images in these catalogues are of course much lower resolution than the originals. I'll put some actual images up there as well so you may compare.
Please get out your red pens, and let me know which images we should drop from these collections. I think some will be obvious, eg do we really need three images of ladybugs?
Should be quite possible to cut this lot by 30-50%.
Joined: Nov 28, 2005 Posts: 299 Location: Near Frankfurt/M. Germany
Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:09 am Post subject:
Peter, is it possible to upload the files in a form, that one could mark the pngs to remove? Or would this be too large?
And: Religion is really dropped now as a folder of its own?
Joined: Feb 12, 2005 Posts: 607 Location: Australia
Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:53 am Post subject:
Orgleser wrote:
Peter, is it possible to upload the files in a form, that one could mark the pngs to remove? Or would this be too large?
And: Religion is really dropped now as a folder of its own?
Hi Thomas
Yes, I can do that. The files are 1.5-4.7mb in size, zipped. Will try to do that soon. I'll put them up on the site for anyone who wants to do that. Private message me for my email address to send them back.
Religion can be a folder on its own: I guess we can make whatever categories we want. Eg "containers" is a very small folder right now: so that could be a part of some other folder.
Cheers
Peter
Suggestions:
1. Could you put up text for each of the folders, them make them live html links when you have data in them? This would make it easier keep track (and yes, I'm lazy, but organized! ).
2. Would it be possible to list the number of items in each folder - eg - animals (125). Another tracking feature to make the task easier to finish.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Edits Please
aussie149 wrote:
I am using GIMP to [a] reduce the size to 550x(less than 500) or below [b] flatten the svg's, removing transparency [c] save as png. Working OK so far, only a couple of non-readables. The images in these catalogues are of course much lower resolution than the originals. I'll put some actual images up there as well so you may compare.
I haven't seen the images, but pictures sometimes benefit from being saved as JPG, rather than PNG. The argument for it was made earlier, but I didn't see anything more about it.
Best wishes,
Oscar _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Joined: Feb 12, 2005 Posts: 607 Location: Australia
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject:
Orgleser wrote:
oscar, after some discussion we thougth best would be jpg for fotos and png for clipart.
Gulp I was speechless overnight there, at the thought that 15-20 hours work might have been in vain Actually, I recognise the potential importance of this project. There isn't anything like this around for NeoOffice or OpenOffice.org There is openclipart, and there is wpclipart. Both are far, far bigger than what we are setting out to create, which is an easily-dowloadable collection of clipart in about twenty commonly-used categories [no sub-categories], for brochures, flyers, cards, newsletters,OHTs, Impress presentations and such, which we hope to be able to place into the gallery easily [autmoatically with an installer, hopefully], so that even newbie users can add it to their program and use it. That's the goal, as we've discussed it.
So, if it is important to do jpg's, I am happy to back track and do jpg's. The photos are jpg's already, the cliparts I have been doing as png's, because of the reasons above [Apple's arguments, the wiki recommending png's for NeoOffice, the fact that MS Word, Swift Publisher and others use png's for clipart, and modelliing ourselves on wpclipart, and openclipart which have travelled this road before us].
I will put up what I've done on the geocities website I'm using for this purpose, along with a folder of svg's, so you can compare the originals. I personally think they look fine for the purpose: most blow up to postcard size quite nicely as png's.
The test I would use is, can they be used as the/a major graphic on an Impress slide? I would imagine that that's the most searching challenge of their quality that they will face. I've been trying a number out with that test, and they have passed well, for mine.
BUT ..let me know. As I say, this is potentially too important to fudge on the basis of a bit of extra work for me I'd rather be right and take a week or two longer now, than rush this.
Oh, and won't it be great to be able to offer this to new users of NeoOffice 2 in x months time!
Joined: Nov 21, 2005 Posts: 1285 Location: Witless Protection Program
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject:
Peter,
Your are doing a GREAT job. Thomas and the others too!
I vote that you continue your efforts, for the many reasons already reviewed, and we'll see the results. No effort will please everyone, you just have to do the your best efforts. If this does not please our group of reviewers, who would this please?
For our purposes - brochures, flyers, cards, newsletters, OHTs (which are?), Impress presentations and such - these are better than what we have (or don't have? ) now.
We can second guess all we want, and never get something we can use.
Let's hurry, before NeoOffice 2.0 appears and we don't have enough clipart to create our handouts!!
Philip ( full or opinions, and I have the Gray hair to prove it! )
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
Actually, I recognise the potential importance of this project. There isn't anything like this around for NeoOffice or OpenOffice.org There is openclipart, and there is wpclipart. Both are far, far bigger than what we are setting out to create, which is an easily-dowloadable collection of clipart in about twenty commonly-used categories [no sub-categories], for brochures, flyers, cards, newsletters,OHTs, Impress presentations and such, which we hope to be able to place into the gallery easily [autmoatically with an installer, hopefully], so that even newbie users can add it to their program and use it. That's the goal, as we've discussed it.
Colored crayons too?