Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Wish List (Read 5335 times) previous topic - next topic

Wish List

I just submitted this to the wish list. Thumbs Up or Down??

For each type of insertable object (text, dynamic,etc.), allow an option so that when that object is inserted, it is automatically selected. After inserting , I almost always want to change something in the properties, such as visibility. It would save a lot of keystrokes.

Re: Wish List

Reply #1 –
Yes please, that would be very useful.

With a previous program I used to use on my Atari ST, I could change the length of the note I just entered, without changing the default note length. With NWC, if I want to do this, I either have to change the default length before I enter the note (not too fiddly, but I often forget, plus it means I usually have to change the length again for the next note), or I have to select the note after I entered it, which interrupts my flow. I'm afraid my keyboard skills are not up to recording in real time!

Robin Withey

Re: Wish List

Reply #2 –
Yes,Yes. I wasn't thinking of notes specifically, but that could certainly be user selectable too.

Re: Wish List

Reply #3 –
I wish for a way to save a page, in a similar manner as copying as a wmf in the Print Preview, to another format, such as TIFF or JPG, or some other sort of more universal picture format.

Re: Wish List

Reply #4 –
As has been discussed elsewhere in the forum: You can make a WMF from NWC, then open the WMF with programs such as the free Irfan View

http://www.irfanview.com

From there, you can save it as JPG and so forth. Given this capability, there seems to be little reason for NWC to change the program.

You may need to adjust the resolution (DPI) of your printer before creating the WMF, as the WMF resolution is related to that of the printer selection.

Re: Wish List

Reply #5 –
JPG's made via this method (I use a similar viewer program, ACDSee 2.41), as well as BMP's, TIF's are too grainy, and to me, unreadable.

I would like to be able to save directly to a picture format, without going to a wmf first.

I also downloaded IRFANVIEW, and found it to be not nearly as good for opening WMF's as ACDSee. The WMF's opened by IRFANVIEW looked just like the jpgs, and other picture files I convert from WMF's. However, ACDSee opens WMF's, and will print them as sharply as printing directly from Noteworthy.

Re: Wish List

Reply #6 –
I was browsing through the Bonus CD-Rom that accompanied my copy of Norton Systems Works, and guess what -- there was a trial version of ACDsee. So I tried it. This was a version from 1998, not necessarily the most recent.

I made a placeable WMF of a NWC file. My default printer is at 300 dpi resolution. Both ACDsee and Irfan View opened the WMF. Here's the interesting part: The image dimensions (in pixels) were different in the two programs! With a little math, I was able to attribute this to the fact that there is often confusion beteen the nominal 72 dpi screen resolution, and the nominal 96 dpi screen resolution. Both programs gave images that had to be down-scaled to proper viewing size, by a facter of 3 or 4. When down-scaled, the images from both programs had the usual fuzzies due to this procedure.

From time to time, a WMF does indeed produce a very grainy, low-resolution image when opened in Irfan View (I have not tried to duplicate the result with ACDsee). The reason seems to have something to do with inappropriate resolution (DPI) of the printer at time of WMF creation. It seems that if the printer is at high resolution (such as 600 dpi) then the WMF is down-sampled or something like that, producing an inappropriate result. Whether the problem lies in the WMF from NWC, or in the interpretation by Irfan View, I do not know.

As discussed elsewhere, the resolution of the WMF is dependent upon printer resolution at time of WMF creation. If you have a printer (such as Acrobat Distiller) that allows 72 dpi or 96 dpi resolution, or "screen" resolution, then you might find that the resulting WMF looks better when converted to an image file (JPG, or GIF would be better).

If you have a PostScript printer installed on your system, and are a knowledgable user, it may be possible to add 72dpi or 96 dpi dummy resolution to the PPD file, using a text editor. Do so at your own risk!

ACDsee and Irfan View are very different programs, not simply clones.

Again, if you own Adobe Illustrator or, I believe, Corel Draw and similar programs, you may be able to open your WMF there.

The bottom line: Is direct creation of an image a useful wish-list feature for a future upgrade to NWC? Although I personally do not need it (having access to advanced technology for handling WMF, as well as PDF generation) maybe other users would like it. How often do we, the users, want to create web-ready images versus printable documents?

Re: Wish List

Reply #7 –
I do exactly this, and have been forced to use Finale for whole pages.

For inserting only a line or two, such my these articles on Sax On The Web:

http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/1389/saxophone/Beginner_Corner1.html

and

http://www.geocities.com/harrir/saxophone/Common_Transpositions.html

Were created using the Copy Special feature of NWC, and inserting these examples into MS Word.

But for Tim Price's Lessons On Sax On The Web,

http://www.geocities.com/saxontheweb/Price/Sept00.html

I have been having to do these in Finale, and saving as a TIF. We are soon to convert these TIF's to pdf format (Adobe viewing). But I would like to do this out of NWC.

Re: Wish List

Reply #8 –
I create PDF out of NWC via Adobe Acrobat (not just the reader). It can also be done by printing a PostScript file then conversion into PDF using Ghostscript. If NWC wants to add the capability for direct PDF generation, without the need for the user to hook up other software, then I imagine it would have to license the technology -- and that would drive up the cost of the program. I suppose that would also be true for certain other bitmap formats.

Re: Wish List

Reply #9 –
My limited experience with copy special was that the hidden objects showed up in the graphic. Light gray, but there nonetheless. This seemed most unhandy, so I quit trying to use it.