comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive

Home » Public Forums » archive » output

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: output [message #34499 is a reply to message #34430]

Wed, 19 March 2003 00:12

tomson
Messages: 39
Registered: March 2003

Member

OH, a very good ideal! I can print it in GSVIEW!

Thank you and David. Thank all.

"Mark Hadfield" <m.hadfield@niwa.co.nz> д��Ϣ��
:b58sc9$oc6$1@newsreader.mailgate.org...
> "David Fanning" <david@dfanning.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.18e185a6879e5d3a989b24@news.frii.com...
>> tomson (tom2959@21cn.com) writes:
>>
>>> SO the best way is to upgrade to word2002.
>>
>> Well, personally, I would spend the money on a PostScript
>> printer. :-)
>>
>> Encapsulated PostScript is kind of like that cold capsule
>> that is half sinus relief and half cold medicine....
>
> I think what David is trying to say is this: -:)
>
> When Word 2000 or earlier imports an EPS file it stores the Postscript
code
> inside the file but doesn't try to interpret it. On the screen it shows a
> very boring box, perhaps with some information from the file header.
However
> it is possible to add a preview graphic to an EPS file. This is usually a
> coarse-resolution image. For some tips on attaching a preview to an EPS
file
> see the following page on Doc Fanning's site:
>
> http://www.dfanning.com/tips/postscript_preview.html
>
> (But I'm sure you've already looked there, haven't you.)
>
> If Word finds a suitable preview graphic (TIFF or WMF format) then it
> displays that.
>
> What you get when you print depends on the type of printer. If it's a
> Postscript printer, Word sends the Postscript info that it stored; quality
> is usually good. If it's a non-Postscript printer, Word prints what it
shows
> on the screen, either the boring box or the preview; quality is usually
bad.
>
> David has suggested that Word 2002 automatically generates an on-screen
> graphic from a plain EPS file. I can't give an informed opinion without
> seeing this for myself, but I am guessing that the on-screen graphic is a
> coarse-resolution image. If so, then this is a cool trick, but not a major
> advance. Then again, maybe I'm wrong.
>
> So it seems that to print embedded EPS files with good quality you still
> need a Postscript printer. If you can't afford one of those, you might
> achieve a similar effect with Ghostcript. This is a software Postscript
> interpreter: it turns Postscript into (usually) images. You can print from
> Word via a Postscript printer driver to generate yet another Postscript
> file. Then use Ghostscript to turn this into a honking big image of the
page
> and send that to your printer. Well, something like that, anyway. I've
never
> had to do this so I can't comment on how easy or successful it is.
>
> For info on Ghostscript and its Windows front end, GSview, see
>
> http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/
>
> ---
> Mark Hadfield "Ka puwaha te tai nei, Hoea tatou"
> m.hadfield@niwa.co.nz
> National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)
>
>
>
>
>

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		output By: tomson on Mon, 17 March 2003 19:47
		Re: output By: MKatz843 on Thu, 20 March 2003 09:55
		Re: output By: jeyadev on Fri, 21 March 2003 12:47
		Re: output By: Pavel Romashkin on Thu, 20 March 2003 09:45
		Re: output By: jeyadev on Fri, 21 March 2003 12:37
		Re: output By: Mark Hadfield on Wed, 19 March 2003 17:27
		Re: output By: Chad Bender on Wed, 19 March 2003 16:13
		Re: output By: jeyadev on Fri, 21 March 2003 12:30
		Re: output By: jeyadev on Wed, 19 March 2003 15:38
		Re: output By: tomson on Wed, 19 March 2003 00:12
		Re: output By: David Fanning on Tue, 18 March 2003 20:52
		Re: output By: Mark Hadfield on Tue, 18 March 2003 20:40
		Re: output By: David Fanning on Tue, 18 March 2003 18:36
		Re: output By: tomson on Tue, 18 March 2003 18:19
		Re: output By: tomson on Tue, 18 March 2003 18:12
		Re: output By: Chad Bender on Tue, 18 March 2003 18:05
		Re: output By: tomson on Tue, 18 March 2003 18:06
		Re: output By: David Fanning on Tue, 18 March 2003 18:01
		Re: output By: tomson on Tue, 18 March 2003 17:59
		Re: output By: David Fanning on Tue, 18 March 2003 17:26
		Re: output By: tomson on Tue, 18 March 2003 17:24
		Re: output By: David Fanning on Tue, 18 March 2003 17:09
		Re: output By: David Fanning on Tue, 18 March 2003 11:45

Previous Topic:	IDL 5.6 PostScript B&W output is gray
Next Topic:	"broken" scale in IDL plot

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 11:14:24 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.19909 seconds