Matt, Several observations:
(1) There is something drastically wrong with your RIP if it is slowing down when faced with compressed images. (2) How an image is compressed in a TIFF file is irrelevant in terms of what FrameMaker, the PostScript driver, and if you are using a PDF workflow, what the Distiller and Acrobat's print routines do with the image with regards to compression. Any LZW or ZIP compression in a screen shot (or any other image) imported into FrameMaker is absolutely lost when FrameMaker sends the image data to the PostScript driver! - Dov > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:matt at grafixtraining.com] > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:45 PM > To: Dov Isaacs; 'Framers List' > Subject: RE: High quality images > > Dov, one clarification/question regarding your advice for > screen shots... > > In my commercial printing experience, I found TIFF to be a > great option for bitmap files including screen shots. > However, I always recommended staying away from the ZIP > compression option. Though a "lossless" format, both > compression and scaling tended to horribly slow down our RIP process. > Though not much of an issue for small files, there also isn't > much advantage to compressing such small files, either. > > In my experience with large full-color CMYK images, the ZIP > compression saved roughly 15% of the file size. For that > smaller size, the RIP time would often increase by a factor > of 4x or 5x. Scaling the image within the application (with > the exception of InDesign) would also slow the RIP. In each > case, the application passes the processing (decompression, > scaling, and rotating) off to the RIP. If we're all saving to > PDF & printing the PDF, then most RIP's will hardly hiccup, > and given the speed of most PDF generation, it's doubtful > you'll be troubled by a (statistically) slower conversion. > Lesson: Convert to PDF with appropriate settings prior to printing. > > Back to scren shots: From my point of view, if saving to PDF > the compression is unnecessary, as you can choose to compress > in the Distilling process. If sending for commercial print, > then the file savings is likely outweighed by additional RIP > (processing) time. > > For screen captures, my clients have the best success simply > pasting from SnagIt, or their application of choice. As the > files would almost never be modified in a bitmap editor, but > simply re-captured, the image on disk is a bit redundant. > Anyone care to comment on the pro's and con's of simply > pasting SCREEN CAPTURES only? > > Matt Sullivan > GRAFIX Training, Inc. > 888/882-2819 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameusers.com > [mailto:framers-bounces+matt=grafixtraining.com at lists.frameuse > rs.com] On Behalf Of Dov Isaacs > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:48 AM > To: Sean; framers at lists.frameusers.com > Subject: RE: High quality images > > I must strongly disagree with ANY advice to resample screen > shots at any stage of the workflow prior to the RIP. > Although this might not be intuitive, upsampling a screen > shot in Photoshop (or name whatever tool you like) prior to > importing or placing into FrameMaker (or name your favorite > layout program) can indeed lead to lossiness. Despite what > many print service providers will tell you, all images are > resampled at the RIP (whether downsampled or upsampled) to > match the combination of the device's actual resolution and > the screening algorithms in use. And such resampling is > typically of quality comparable to the best you can do in > Photoshop. Since resampling is done at the RIP anyway, doing > a "manual" upsampling prior to the RIP process may cause real > content in your image to be lost. For screen shots, such data > lossiness can yield really crufty results. And such extra > resampling prior to the RIP process violates the "reliable > PDF workflow" principles. > > - Dov > > > > >