Skip navigation
Sandee78
Currently Being Moderated

AI to CDR

Mar 2, 2013 8:58 PM

Tags: #to #draw #corel #cdraw #ai #cdr

Hi

 

All of my printers and print vendors work on COrel Draw but I Love using AI. ANd everytime I have to submit a final file I have to import the same to Corel and still redo a lot of steps.

 

I would appretiate if there is a complete solution to this matter. Special Functions like Gradient, Clipmask, Blend do not work or disappear when opened to Corel and vice versa,

 

Please find a solution where  people like me have to just save the file as a CDR file on AI save as format. Or else without a choice will have to mve soon to Corel.

 

BTW Corel has a Save as Option to AI. Why not AI?

 

Like to hear a solution.

 

And Pls, dont tell me that I should save the file as .eps and Import the file on corel it will work perfectly cuz it doesnt.

 

Cheers

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2013 4:41 AM   in reply to Sandee78

    Corel's format is as proprietary as is Adobe's. Nobody can create any tool or plug-in that offers perfect interoperability unless both companies decide to sign mutual contracts and realese the format specs publicly, which for understandablke reasons they might not care to do. I'm not saying that this is an ideal situation, but it's simply unrealistic to assume that this would in any way be resolved any time soon. Yes, if your peers use Corel, then simply use it, too.

     

    Mylenium

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2013 4:56 AM   in reply to Sandee78

    "BTW Corel has a Save as Option to AI."

     

    Yes it does. But when you use it, things like gradients, etc., get rasterized or dropped, just like going from AI to CDR. The two programs use completely different engines for special effects like that. Sad to say there is no easy solution.

     

    In my experience there are four possible solutions:

     

    1) see if they will take a PDF for final output; a format on which both platforms can (more or less) agree.

     

    2) Rasterize your file at some acceptable resolution; either directly from AI or through Photoshp, and send them that. Not always an acceptable answer due to large final file size.

     

    3) Learn Corel (You have my sympathies there, I find Illy much more capable).

     

    4) Find another printer / vendor, one who will work with you (in an industry standard format). There's plenty of them about.

     

    Good luck.

     

    --OB

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2013 5:20 AM   in reply to Sandee78

    You need better print vendors

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2013 7:29 AM   in reply to Sandee78

    All of my printers and print vendors work on COrel Draw

    What kind of printers and print vendors are you talking about? What "work" are your printers and print vendors doing in Draw? In other words, what do they need to do to your files other than print them?

     

    If you are talking about something like, for example, sign shops which are cutting your designs on sign vinyl, that would make sense. That particular industry has long favored Draw because Draw has some features which are more amenable to it.

     

    But if you're just talking about printing for offset lithography (regular commercial printing), they should be able to print from press-ready PDFs, which you can export from most any mainstream graphics program. PDF is, in that sense, a "lowest common denominator" format for final output. But it is not for editing.

     

    For offset print, I use whatever appropriate drawing program I feel like, and send PDF as the final output bundle. It's of no concern to the printing house what drawing program I prefer to use.

     

    ...but I Love using AI.

    Egads, why? You love using it compared to what? It's the most confused, scattered, unintuitive, tedious program on the planet. Or are you merely saying it's the only drawing program you are presently accustomed  to using?

     

    If your industry/workflow/business partners have legitimate reasons for using Draw, well, you should too. Consider it a valuable opportunity  to become proficient in more than just one conventional-wisdom pet drawing program.

     

    For example; suppose the industry or vertical market you work in were commonly dependent upon things like dimensioned drawings, or flow charts (connector lines) or easy/quick contour lines (like seen in land plots) or user-defined drawing scales. Those would be perfectly legitimate reasons to standardize a workflow on Draw rather than Illustrator, because Illustrator simply doesn't provide for them. (Just a short while ago merely needing more than one page  in a document ruled out Illustrator.)

     

    Another business setting may be dependent upon GIS functionality, or meta data (part numbers and descriptions, for example) associated with particular drawn elements stored in an application-level library. Those would be perfectly sound reasons for standardizing on Canvas instead of Draw or Illustrator.

     

    I've never understood why anyone in this business would actually desire  to be a one trick pony, only able to work comfortably in one particular program. To me, that feels like being a captive, or a victim.

     

    ANd everytime I have to submit a final file I have to import the same to Corel and still redo a lot of steps.

     

    So what kind of things in your Illustrator drawings are you having to rework in Draw in order to make them suitable for the intended purpose? Things like those features mentioned above can be faked   or worked-around in Illustrator, but they would have no live functionality. They would be like dumb vector "snapshots". Workarounds--however "clever"--are not efficient. Far too much in Illustrator is a workaround.

     

    I would appretiate if there is a complete solution to this matter.

    There isn't. Different programs from different vendors are independently developed. Even common functions which yield similar results are independently developed and coded. Adobe can't legally just copy the actual code  for a function from Draw and paste it into Illustrator (even if it were possible). Nor can Corel do the same with Adobe code. That would be copyright infringement. The two (or four or five) similar software publishers can code their own solutions based upon published and/or licensed standards (like PostScript and PDF), but the interfaces and actual program codes are independent and independently owned. That's why, for example, Adobe had to buy  Macromedia in order to copy certain features of FreeHand before doing half-baked attempts at simulating those features in Illustrator.

     

    Special Functions like Gradient, Clipmask, Blend do not work or disappear when opened to Corel and vice versa,

    Even common features which are similar between competing drawing programs have to be translated  from the code of one program to that of the other. Something is often lost in the translation. You don't even have to be comparing two different vendors to see this. Export a PDF from Illustrator without actaully embedding an Illustrator-native version of it. Then open that PDF in Illustrator, and you'll find all kinds of convoluted, cumbersome constructs that won't work like they originally did when created in Illustrator.

     

    Have you read the Corel Draw documentation to understand which versions  of Illustrator your version  of Draw (you didn't mention either) can import? Draw's documentation is pretty thorough, even describing how specific kinds of objects are translated.

     

    Please find a solution where people like me have to just save the file as a CDR file on AI save as format.

    You're not talking to Adobe in this forum. This is a user-to-user forum.

     

    Or else without a choice will have to mve soon to Corel.

     

    I dare say that threat won't carry much weight, even if Adobe were listening.

     

    BTW Corel has a Save as Option to AI. Why not AI?

    Because in the early days of Bezier curve drawing programs (i.e.; PostScript based drawing programs in the 80s), .ai was pretty much regarded "as the same thing" as PostScript, and .ai format became sort of a defacto exchange format between competing programs. But use of .ai as an exchange format is highly dependent upon version.  Again, such problems are not even limited to speaking about competing vendors. For example, open a pre-CS Illustrator file with later versions and you'll encounter a decision you have to make regarding how text will be handled in the conversion.

     

    And Pls, dont tell me that I should save the file as .eps and Import the file on corel it will work perfectly cuz it doesnt.

    Okay, I won't tell you that.

     

    EPS is Encapsulated PostScript. FIrst off, .eps is encapsulated--put into a "closed box" that can be "passed through" a non-PostScript program so that the program that doesn't understand PostScript at all (office applications, for example) can at least import it as an object and then just pass it on to a printing device that can  undersand the PostScript that it contains.

     

    Secondly, .eps is PostScript, not native Illustrator interface constructs; it is "dumbed down" to more basic constructs that a printing device's PostScript interpreter can understand. Much like PDF (which has all but replaced it) it's not really meant to serve as an open-and-edit format for other programs. But it has become used for that over the years for relatively basic constructs. For example, it is common for software which drives HPGL-based plotters and cutters to be able to translate basic paths  into HPGL commands. But such purposes and devices are only interested in the basic paths.

     

    So the panacea you're looking for does not exist. There is no perfect translation from native AI to native CD, nor vice-versa, nor between any other competing mainstream drawing programs. (It's like trying to actually depend upon Google Translation for a technical manual to avoid paying a translation house to do a proper translation.) All such drawing program translations are fraught with construct-specific caveats. Use of such translations are intended for and should be limited to workflows which either:

     

    • Rely only upon basic constructs that do translate reliably. (Simple paths, fills, strokes, grads, text, raster object, etc.)

     

    or

     

    • Proceed in one direction from full interface-based creation toward "nailed down" final output wherein objects are allowed to be decomposed into their more basic objects, because they don't need to be edited downstream.

     

    You should not make yourself dependent upon such translations if your workflow requires:

     

    • Back-and-forth editing between different programs

     

    or

     

    • Specific features which both programs do not fully and seamlessly support.

     

    So without more specific information about what exactly you are doing (versions of both programs, specific features you need to translate, the purpose/industry you are involved in), then the best advice anyone can give you is: Why kick against the thorns? Use the program best suited for the workflow you are invoved in.

     

    JET

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points