John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Now I could of course scan to an pnm or png image instead of
> Postscript. (I could still save as Postscript from Gimp.)  Which
> would be preferable for input to Gimp, pnm or png?

PNG would be very well suited and I really don't understand why you
used PS in the first place.
> (In earlier Gimps I could of course scan directly from Xsane 
> into Gimp but this option disappeared with Gimp 1.3/2.0 and 
> an early reappearance seems unlikely. )

Now I am slowly starting to become angry. Why do you spread such
misinformation? You are on this list for a while now and you should
know that XSane works with GIMP 2.0 after a few trivial
modifications. If the XSane maintainer is really unwilling to do a
release of XSane that works with GIMP 2.0, then it would be just a
matter of asking me or any other GIMP developer to provide a patch
for it.

> As a point of interest, some pages in my workflow are not 
> scanned but are created by the mup music typesetting  
> program. These are also in PostScript form. Since they are 
> true typeset PostScript and not a bitmapped image they are 
> about 10% as large as the comparable scanned image 
> presented as a ps file. 

It's probably not such a good idea to edit these files with GIMP then.
Opening them with GIMP will rasterize the fonts. The result will be OK
if the resolution is well choosen but it will be comparably poor if
you decide to change the print resolution later.

> To summarize, I can scan to png or pnm instead of PostScript 
> and import that into Gimp. But I need eps output for my 
> present method. If I switch to pdftex then I could utilize 
> png output. 
> Are there advantages to using e.g., png throughout?  

PNG files are probably smaller but there are no fundamental reasons
against using EPS as the output format.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to