On Aug 27, 2006, at 9:59 PM, Phil M wrote:
Yes, many publications would prefer vector graphics for the reasons stated. However, modern charts use Drop Shadow effects, Blurs, Transparency and Gradients which can make for some very troublesome (and large) vector files, or would have raster-bound elements. Even Illustrator CS2 EPS files with these effects can have unpredictable results on all but the most modern RIPs.
Most of these 'modern' features are not used much in scientific graphics (at least standard journal articles) and, in my opinion, detract from delivering information.
So if a REALbasic graphing utility could export bitmap pictures at decent resolutions, the publications would not object to that. The only real issue that I see is that REALbasic cannot save a Picture in TIFF CMYK which is what most publications would require... and would require the utility to have an additional post-processing step.
In my experience, journals prefer bitmaps at high resolution, so this is not the reason I prefer vector graphics. The reason is what I stated in the earlier message: it is much easier to arrange and manipulate large sets of graphics in a graphics layout program. Things like selecting all markers of a particular color fill and enlarging them or changing the color fill are possible for vector graphics and impossible in a bitmap.
John Kubie _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
