Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Poor copy result - not worth printing. (Read 6805 times) previous topic - next topic

Poor copy result - not worth printing.

In the past (before updating to the latest version) I was easily able to move my print pages from NWC to a graphic program with no loss of quality that I could see.  However, I just did this with latest version (V2.1) with very bad results.  I copied from the print preview page in NWC and then pasted into Corel Draw 12.  Looked OK on the computer (without zooming).  However, printing looked awful.  The staff lines were very weak and the slurs were totally uneven in thickness, varying from good and dark to invisible all along their length.  The note stems were also very, very light.  When I saw the result I did a zoom and, sure enough, the problems were apparent when looking at the enlarged view as it appeared in the graphics program.

The reason I wished to move to a graphic program was to make it easier to add bowing notation for a violin score.  I'd solved that easily enough, using symbols from another font and converting them to curves and doing a lot of copying and pasting; but the result was not useable.

Just so you know, I figured out how to use the boxmarks font in the program proper ... so it's not a problem any more.  Still, there may be other occasion (by me or others) to want to move to a graphics program and it would appear that that's not working.

Tony in Rindge, NH

Re: Poor copy result - not worth printing.

Reply #1 –
Glad you no longer have a problem, but I think that you need to ensure that your graphics program understands EMF files.
This is probably why you had a bad results.

Note that before version 2, NoteWorthy created wmf files. From version 2 it created emf files. This format is alien to many graphics programs.
For example, If I get a print preview screen and copy as an emf file, If I then open with Irfanview, I can zoom in and the quality is good through the all the zoom settings. If I try to load the same file to Photoshop Elements (ver 7) it reports that it is the wrong type of file.

If however, I copy to the clipboard and paste that image into Photoshop Elements, I get a very bad reproduction that is even worse when zoomed.

I suspect that Corel Draw 12 is the same.

Microsoft Picture manager gives a bad reproduction.
Microsoft Windows Paint  understands emf and gives a good reproduction.
Open Office Draw understands emf and gives a good reproduction.
Inserting emf into Microsoft office (2007) products seems to work OK and gives a good reproduction.
Rich.

Re: Poor copy result - not worth printing.

Reply #2 –
We publish an EMF Viewer tool that demonstrates the high quality nature of the graphics created by NWC 2.1. You can find it here:

NoteWorthy Software's Enhanced Metafile Viewer

The only purpose for this tool is to prove that the graphics themselves are of high quality.

Re: Poor copy result - not worth printing.

Reply #3 –
Rich.
Thank you for your explanation.  That is the problem, very obviously.  It's still not all hunky dory.  For example, Corel Draw X5 won't take the paste from the copy I made in NWC print preview (or, rather, it takes it, but the problem's unchanged).  However, Corel Draw will accept the .emf file when I create that instead of just copying it.  Unfortunately, each staff is distorted with the last/bottom line being about 10 line thicknesses thick.  Must be a problem with Corel, and I've no time to pursue that.

However, wonder of wonders, Open Office Drawing accepts the copy just beautifully, graphics excellent and all.  Just did a paste, and there it was.  Printed perfectly too.

Thanks for your help, Rich.  It is very much appreciated.  For myself, I suppose I can learn how to run OO Draw in a pinch.

Best wishes.

Re: Poor copy result - not worth printing.

Reply #4 –
For what it's worth ...  NoteWorthy's EMF file output from Print Preview works perfectly when opened in Arcsoft PhotoStudio.  Scores are complete and clean, all the way.

Joe
 

Re: Poor copy result - not worth printing.

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Tony DAmbrosio –
Rich.
Thank you for your explanation.  That is the problem, very obviously.

A pleasure.  FWIW, many of us went through what you are going through when we first used version 2 and found the graphics copy was not as we were used to.  I think that is why NoteWorthy produced the EMF Viewer. (Which I had totally forgotten about).

You will find that some graphics packages react differently to an emf file loaded or the same graphic pasted. Just the way it goes I suppose.

Anyway, happy Noteworthying !
Rich.