Hi, we are getting philosophical ... sorry for the long answer.
Jonathan Alvarsson wrote: > Hi I actually know nothing about this particular topic but I have done some > (a little) print work and I am becoming interested. I am trying to figure > out why you want a 2D vector graphic from the beginning. I mean to me it > would seem like in most cases a model which can be viewed in 3D in some > program would be optimal for studying and for printing an image rendered > specifically (cropping, resolution, color / black-white, etc...) for that > print situation should give the best result. > In what situation do you need a > 2D vector representation? "need" is a strong word. I guess it is possible to do everything in different ways. It then comes down to likes and dislikes. What I do not like about raster images is the large file size. I do not like the time spent for re-rendering and thinking about minimum resolution for printing. I do not like to worry about transparent colours, anti-aliasing or dithering. I do like reusing figures. I like to put them on different backgrounds within presentations or posters in different sizes and. In a presentation I like to discuss parts of an image, deleting the rest. I like to add interactions and arrows between molecules after I discussed their relationships. I like to build up a complicated image from its parts. Let me step back a bit. I usually have a 3D structural chemistry problem which I must explain to my audience and I can only use traditional 2D representations in most media (print, posters, presentations). I therefore have to do two abstractions, one in terms of scientific explanations needed to understand the problem and a second to project the explanation onto 2D. Very often both abstractions are mixed. This is a common thing in chemistry and when you have to explain concepts like a Newman projection to someone who did not do chemistry as a subject you see the difficulties involved. I think of raster/vector in terms of a art painting and a technical drawing. An unfair generalization would be: A nicely rendered 3D image is beautiful and amazes the observer. A skillful prepared 2D vector is useful and leads the observer to understanding. In the end my job is to make my audience understand, not amaze them with beauty. Therefore I have to do some abstraction. The new 3D model manipulation software (like Mercury) gave me better control on that level. But with the rendered 3D images it produces, any further work on and with the figures got difficult or impossible. If find myself with photographers tools and anything I change looks wrong and not up to the quality of the rendered image. I traded more control of abstraction on one level against less control on another level. It is as if you had to explain the way to the main station with photographs only and not make use of drawings or maps. I thought about this again and again and the solution would be to have a different output format. Did I get my "need" across? Regards, -- Dr. Michael T. Kirchner Institut für Anorganische Chemie Universität Duisburg-Essen Universitätsstr. 5-7 45117 Essen [email protected] Tel +49 201 183 4139 Fax +49 201 183 7342 Raum S07 S00 C24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
