-
1. Re: Need basic advice on images in IL copied to Word
Mylenium Feb 17, 2011 8:02 AM (in response to TCarp)The BMP format has no DPI flag, so only the absolute pixel size matters. If the DPI matter in any way (for printing Word files perhaps....), use PNG or TIFF (with the added benefit of Office even being able to use PNG transparency). The edges you see are most likely simply because the graphics are not 100% in size. Almost always they will be scaled because the program attempts to fit them to the text lines and columns. Manually setting them to 100% and changing the layout mode to not be anchored to the text usualyl works for me...
Mylenium
-
2. Re: Need basic advice on images in IL copied to Word
Mike Gondek2 Feb 17, 2011 8:54 AM (in response to TCarp)Illustrator >> File >> Export >> Enhanced Meta File(.emf)
Microsoft works better with their own file formats, and .emf will stay vector quality so you can scale as much as you need. Just use the insert image command in Word, rather than copying into word.
-
3. Re: Need basic advice on images in IL copied to Word
Wade_Zimmerman Feb 17, 2011 9:01 AM (in response to Mike Gondek2)On the Mac side with Office 2004 and later you will do best with .ai files which will remain scalable.
-
4. Re: Need basic advice on images in IL copied to Word
TCarp Feb 20, 2011 8:36 AM (in response to Mylenium)Thanks for the post. Since I'm as interested in learning as I am getting the graphics to the Word doc, I appreciate your info about a bmp not having a DPI flag. I'm not that knowledgable so I assume one gets better print quality if a DPI flag is present therefore bmp=bad in my case.
A little later there's a post suggesting emf for Office. I tried that but the quality of the graphics still are very poor. And then when I scale to the final size, it gets worse. Just to check technique: AI > export > emf. Word > insert > picture.
The graphics is pretty simple. A few rounded rectangle boxes, a couple straight lines, and text areas.
The rectangles end up with jagged edges and the text is no better.
At one time I heard to do all the scaling in the graphics app so I've actually had better results by doing the scaling in AI.
I ran the same test using a png. The rectangle lines are much better as is the text but the text is a little "bolder" than the original and just slightly blurry.
Since that means emf is sensitive to something in my original graphics.
TIFF may have been the best but even there it looks a bit grayer than the original.
First, is there any easy explanation why these export formats perform differently in Word (for my education)? Is it possible there's something about my graphics (font chosen, stroke size, ???) that makes it difficult for these transforms?
Tom
-
5. Re: Need basic advice on images in IL copied to Word
JETalmage Feb 20, 2011 11:18 AM (in response to TCarp)function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
I assume one gets better print quality if a DPI flag is present.No. What you're referring to as "a DPI flag" is just a scale factor. Many raster formats do not store a scale factor. Even those that do may be be ignored by the program into which it is imported.
Because it's just a scale factor, it is simple to compensate, regardless of file format. For example, if you place a 72 PPI image (it's better to refer to raster resolution as Pixels Per Inch, not Dots Per Inch) into a layout, and then scale it to 50%, its PPI will then be 144.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
A little later there's a post suggesting emf for Office. I tried that but the quality of the graphics still are very poor....The graphics is pretty simple. A few rounded rectangle boxes, a couple straight lines, and text areas.Depends on content. Fills? Grads? Version? Without gettting into alot of object-specific caveats, just try it. If you get unsatisfactory results, you'll have to resort to a raster format. Use PNG.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
I ran the same test using a png. The rectangle lines are much better as is the text but the text is a little "bolder" than the original and just slightly blurry.Try toggling the option for either Type Optimized or Art Optimized. It's accessible in the PNG export dialog and in the Save For Web dialog.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
...is there any easy explanation why these export formats perform differently in Word (for my education)?Rasterization is, by its nature, a compromise. That's one reason why vector graphics exist. When working with office applications, resorting to raster formats is often unavoidable. Office apps simply do not support the kinds of vector graphics which (PostScript) programs designed for the print world do. Again, that's why print-oriented graphics programs exist. Word, for example, doesn't know didly about printing color separations.
Similarly, web browsers ignore the scale factors embedded in images; instead you code the image scaling in the HTML.
So the simple fact is, not all programs can handle the "higher end" functionality of cubic Bezier curves, CMYK images, etc., etc. So one has to find acceptable "lowest common denominators," which--when speaking of graphics--usually means restorting to raster images and accepting the inherent limitations of that.
On the other hand, Illustrator can't handle things as basic as data merge or tables, either.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Is it possible there's something about my graphics (font chosen, stroke size, ???) that makes it difficult for these transforms?You're dealing with rasterization and anti-aliasing. Again, it's a compromize required whenever working with raster formats. If you don't anti-alias, you get "less fuzzy" text at small sizes, but you also get more jagged edges in vector objects.
You just have to have realistic expectations when rasterizing small text.
JET
-
6. Re: Need basic advice on images in IL copied to Word
TCarp Feb 21, 2011 6:51 AM (in response to JETalmage)Very helpful (as usual from you). Good education.
Thanks for the clarification on the DPI flag in BMP files. I'll think that through to understand if it matters given what I'm doing (AI to Word).
You keep refering to rastorizing which confuses me since I'm working with (what I thought) were vector objects. Am I getting that when you go to apps like Word things go rastor? Not counting the output/display device itself, doesn't everything ultimately get rastorized? I have to do some more reading on Postscript. I realize that AI and IL live in a whole different world than PPT and Word, but sometimes the ramifactions take a bit of understanding. Am I correct in assuming that if I use IL instead of Word, things will be different? It may be time to make the leap.
This is my current method:
I create the graphics in AI that are destined for both web and print. I create two files: the original is sized to 11 x 8.5 and the other is about 60% of that size. Once the original is finished I copy all to the second and then scale it. Both are then exported as PNG files with the appropriate resolution. I use both on the web (almost like a thumbnail) to enlarge the image on click. The smaller one is also exported at 300 ppi. It's this one I insert into the Word document. It needs some additional sizing which I do in the Word app. I'll test to see if creating a 3rd file (one sized to the final target size in Word) makes a difference.
Probably more to come.
{EDIT]
Best results so far are to create an AI file the target size for the Word document (i.e. 3.5 x 2.70). I then copy the graphics from the original (11 x 8.5) AI document, paste it to the Word-destined AI file, and scale it to 33%. I then export it as a PNG in insert it into the Word document.
Looks good in print preview. Acrobat, however, seems to mess things up quite a bit when I convert to a PDF. (Ugh)
Tom



