Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: poor preview image... (Read 2912 times) previous topic - next topic

poor preview image...

I have put the problem of poor image export quality forward several times. With the same questions asked so many times by other and seemingly never answered in a straight forward way, I am concluding that NWC cannot export a descent images to any word processing, ghostwrite, publisher, corel draw program. It just doesn't seem possible to improve on an image that the Nwc program produces poorly to start with.

It has been suggested that the monitor resolution is to blame, being lower than the print.

My question is how come NWC doesn't resolve this issue with a clear method. It is a shame that such a beautiful program can't export and that one would have to pull out ones hair to find a work around.

If there is a way to do this, then say so.
Otherwise admit that it won't.

The most logical method seemed to be the apple ps driver trick. The results however were worse than ever.

I have been trying to do this for six months and I am tired.
From what I can make of it, really, is that NWC has programing shortcomings.

Paul

Re: poor preview image...

Reply #1 –
I've had problems with importing images to some programs.
But I suggest the problem is with those programs rather than the metafiles generated by NWC since the same image produces different results in different applications.

Until recently I used Coreldraw 4 which seemed to displace the notes against the staff lines.
But the same image imported beautifully into Microsoft Publisher.
I recently upgraded!! to Coreldraw 5 and the problem has disappeared.

Don't blame NWC for the quality of the images - it's probably your other applications.

One thing I have noticed is that the print driver affects the image - I get a better image using a generic Laserjet driver than using the HPLJ4L driver that came with the printer??

Perhaps thats worth a try.

Re: poor preview image...

Reply #2 –
Finally what seems to work is to print to the Paper Port driver, and then save out the resulting image a jpg file. Then I put the file in Microsoft Word using 1/2 inch margins. The resulting staff lines look bad but print up real well. It seems that what you see is not what you get.
(wysNwyg)

Re: poor preview image...

Reply #3 –
A vector metafile is preferable to any form of bitmap if you intend to change the size of the original to fit the format of a document.

Enlarging or reducing a bitmap creates the jaggies.

Also JPEG has only two formats 24 bit colour and 8 bit greyscale.
If your score is monochrome a 1 bit (black and white) GIF saves a lot of disk space and will occupy considerably less space in your document.

As a comparison - original image 1024x768

Colour 24 bit JPEG - 120kb on disk - 2.3Mb unpacked.
Greyscale 8 bit JPEG - 104kb on disk - 786kb unpacked.
Colour 8 bit GIF - 345kb on disk - 786kb unpacked.
Monochrome 1 bit GIF - 19kb on disk - 98kb unpacked.

Note how compressed the JPEG format is.
Even the 256 colour GIF occupies 3x the disk space of a full colour JPEG - but if unpacked size (in your document) is important then 256 colour GIF is a reason colour substitute being only 1/4 of the size of an unpacked JPEG.

Did you check out the print quality of an imported metafile?

Re: poor preview image...

Reply #4 –
Monochrome RLE (run length encoded BMP) or monochrome or four colour GIF are by far the file formats of choice for black and white bitmaps of text and lines.

JPEG is a "lossy" format, which introduces anomolies into the picture which can be very obvious with straight black and white.

I have always found that exporting a metafile from NWC print preview worked pretty well except that CorelDraw 4 (must be an Australian thing to use an app that is four major updates old!) would displace things.

A