Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] Netatalk and OPI
From: Andras Kadinger (bandit@freeside.elte.hu)
Date: Wed Jan 27 1999 - 03:10:07 EST
Hans-Guenter Weigand wrote:
>
> bandit@freeside.elte.hu (Kadinger Andras) wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Hans-Guenter Weigand wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO the downsampling of image files is a key feature of OPI. Only the
> > > scanner operator and the Photoshop wizards deal with big files, but the
> > > majority of people does text and layout, and therefore work with the
> > > low-res files only. This is the only way to deal with these masses of
> > > data we have in prepress environments in an ethernet network.
>
> [I corrected your tag line here, Lee Blevins didn't say such things :) ]
Oops, I apologize. I'm not yet very proficient at using pine...
> > When we bought our OPI system, I called our tech support, can't we please
> > turn off lo-res generation and actually substitute on OPI comments instead
> > of on the comments encapsulated in the lo-res EPS-es. They didn't
>
> So you only use the OPI print spooler?
Since must use lo-res images we don't, but we'd be glad to.
> This works fine in a Mac-only environment. But since intel started
> shipping chipsets capable of addressing more than 64 MB RAM, we see more
> and more guys working on PCs. Are there previews embedded in the (EPS)
> image files?
Hmm, good question. I think there are some provisions for that, but I
haven't looked at more closely. However, I think there should be, since
Quark certainly can't interpret Photoshop EPSes but still displays a
preview. Yes, now I remember; there is possibility for a TIFF preview to
be stored with the actual PostScript data.
> Does anybody here know how TeX would
> handle OPI if one tried to run OPI without low-res image files? With
> low-res EPS files containing the OPI comments every program, even if
> completely unaware of OPI, becomes usable in prepress.
I see, and I agree; still we (I mean at my workplace) don't need that,
and besides it might speed up things if a 'lores-less' version is
circulated since that's apparently closer to happen that if we had to
implement all the lo-res generating stuff from the beginning.
> > Of course the problem can be attenuated by educating users, keeping
> > strict order in files and buying a bug-free OPI software, but AFAIK this
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'm not aware of such OPI software; that got me started ;)
Yep, that was what I meant. Exactly. :)
> Ah, Harlequin. I've heard great things about it, but as an contracted
> Linotype reseller we are not able to sell anything else than Linotype.
> And because of their prices many old machines are still in operation,
> like the PS-level-1 series of hardware RIPs up to model RIP40, running
> on 16 MHz Motorola 88000 processors or something worse.
Hmm, this could be a valid concern from the aspect of anticipating
compatibility issues indeed. I for one was for not bending over the back
to be Level 1-compatible, but try to be if it only involves little
effort. Yet I fear bugs in (old) RIPs more, than Level 1-ness.
Regards,
Andras Kadinger
bandit@freeside.elte.hu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:16:16 EST