I have a question regarding high quality exports from spotfire to PDF.
I read on Spotfire support page that to obtain highest quality exports for visualizations you should select vectors (instead of rastar). They still provide better quality than rastar graphics with maximum quality (5 out of 5). However, when I export these images to PDF, the quality is relatively low. Is there a way I can increase the quality? Would it help to select e.g. PPT exports? I think manual screenshots are still better in quality, but more timeconsuming. We are looking for end-user friendly interface.
Furthermore, if your table is longer and you use slider, what is the recommended way of exporting such a graphic?
Thanks a lot.
raster graphics are generally lower quality. jpeg, for example, is a raster format, where each pixel in the image is coded to a specific color; if you resize the image, it becomes blurry or loses detail.
vector format defines points, lines, and shapes that make up an image. when you scale the image up or down, there is no guesswork trying to blend pixels -- instead the points are recalculated to whatever size. for example, fonts are usually vector format, which is what allows them to be scaled up or down to any size.
the quality of the vector image may be low due to the zoom settings on your PDF viewer (although the image can be scaled to any size, your screen still relies on pixels to display it), but it is the most possible detail. if you zoom in you will probably see an increase in quality.
manual screenshots probably look "best" because there is no scaling or resizing involved. you can export to PNG (raster) image format to get the same effect.
you will not see an increase in quality by exporting to Powerpoint. either you will export it as a raster image to a PPT slide (default settings) or you will export it as a vector using the "As Editable Image" checkbox (which allows you to modify the image in PPT).
what is your end goal? Spotfire is best suited for viewing in the Desktop or Web Player applications, otherwise you lose a lot of features like interactivity, (potentially) live date. if you have to make a lot of exports maybe it is easier to simply provide a link to the analysis?
to your final question, Spotfire is not very good at table exports. I have had some luck with increasing the page size (A4 or A5, for example) and using Landscape over Portrait. again, I recommend to view it in the application.
Related
Can anyone tell why the image in this pdf does not display as 100% Cyan?
clrtestc - NOPREBLEND32.PDF
Warning: I probably know just enough about pdf and colour to be dangerous!
I'm pretty sure each colour plane of the image is in a separate image. Here's a blended version if that helps.
I know the ColorSpace is DeviceCMYK
I'm pretty sure there is only 100% Cyan in the image, at least there was when it went into the PDF converter.
What went in:
CMYK: 100,0,0,0
RGB: 0,255,255
What I measure coming out:
CMYK: 100,27,0,6
RGB: 0,173,238
I'm foxed! Is there some filter affecting the rendering of the PDF?
There's also Magenta, Yellow and Black versions if they help.
Any help much appreciated.
The PDF file is extraordinarily complicated, it has numerous Forms, some of them nested, most of which are empty. However there only appears to be one image, which is defined in an Indexed CMYK space. So as far as I can see, this is indeed a 100% cyan image.
The extended graphics state does use the Multiply Blend mode, and there is no group and no page group specified, so the colour space used for the blending will depend on the colour model of the output device. If that's a monitor, then it's entirely possible that the resulting output will be RGB.
That's because your CMYK image needs to be converted to RGB in order to be blended using that colour space.
Incidentally, the image is in an Indexed colour space. In your image all the image samples have the same value, that value is then consulted in a lookup table, and that table returns the CMYK components. So no, there is not one image per colour plane, or at least, not in this file.
To be honest, you're going to have to explain better how you are evaluating the content of the PDF file. As far as I can see the image is 100% cyan, and when rendered to a CMYK device, it will remain 100% cyan. If you render to an RGB device, it will be converted to RGB. A poor quality PDF consumer might decide to convert to RGB in the absence of a defined colour space for the blending operation.
Since the blending mode doesn't actually do anything (there's no defined alpha, SMask or any other transparency in the file) you could remove that and see if it sorts out your problem.
Edit
Your screen will be an RGB device, so no matter what the CMYK values in the PDF file are, there won't be any CMYK in the screenshot. The PDF rendering engine will have to convert the CMYK to RGB.
So the PDF rendering engine performs an opaque CMYK->RGB conversion. Then you take a picture of that RGB screen. You load that into an image editing application, and ask it what the RGB values are and presumably what it thinks are the CMYK equivalents.
If the CMYK->RGB calculation that the PDF viewer performs is not the inverse of the calculation that the RGB->CMYK image application performs, then you won't be getting the right values!
There's no way to predict what the RGB intermediate values 'should' be, because there is no 'right' answer here. Fundamentally this isn't a reliable technique for evaluating the colour.
It's hard to make any kind of recommendation without knowing what you are trying to achieve (and possibly why), and what tools you are prepared to use. I believe Acrobat Pro would allow you to look at the colour values directly for example. Or you could use something like Ghostscript to create a CMYK TIFF file, then open that in an image application which supports CMYK (like Photoshop) and look at the values there.
But rendering to the screen, taking a screenshot and trying to figure out what the CMYK values might or might not have been is not really going to work.
I'm trying hard to nicely blur a red circle but everytime i get gradient levels of red and the image looks choppy.
Before:
http://i.imgur.com/6yzMhFI.png
After:
http://i.imgur.com/2dZl4ph.png
How i can acheive a smooth blur ?
If you are referring to the visible circles that separate the gradation levels, that is called banding Here are some ways to fix that:
Increase your document's bit level from 8-bit to 16-bit
This will increase the amount of colors your file can represent, creating more colors that can be used to represent the gradient, making it smoother in appearance.
In Photoshop navigate to Image>Mode>16-Bits/Channel
In GIMP 2.10 (or higher?), navigate to Image>Precision>16 bit..
Display or system settings might be unable to display enough colors
If changing the bit depth does not fix the issue then you might have a hardware or system settings issue.
If it's a hardware issue, your monitor might not have the capability to display enough colors to render the gradient smooth
If it's system settings you will need to go to your operating systems color depth setting, usually located under the system's display settings. It could say something like Millions of Colors, or True Color (32-bit).
The last thing related to settings is that you have a bad color profile set in your system or in your image editing software. It's beyond the scope of this answer. If you don't know how to color calibrate your monitor, then it most likely isn't this and you can skip this.
If you have to have 8-bits
If you absolutely have to keep your document in 8-bit color space then you will have to use dithering or add some noise to your image to confuse the viewers brain into seeing a smooth gradient.
Noise or dithering will confuse the viewers brain into seeing a smoother gradient by setting some focus on the imperfections of the noise/grain/dithering. This doesn't exactly answer your question, but it is about the only option you have if you keep your ultra smooth gradient in 8-bit mode.
Good Luck!
I think you are applying the Gussain-Blur to the entire image try to Select the red circle and apply the Gussain-Blur filter to it
I'm importing my stimulus from a folder. I would like to make them bigger *the actual image size is 120 pix (height) x 170 pix (width). I've tried to double the size by using this code in the PsychoPy Coder:
stimuli.append(visual.ImageStim(win=win, name='image', units='cm', size= [9, 6.3],
(I used the double number in cms) but this distorts the image. Is it any way to enlarge it without it distorting, or do I have to change the stimuli itself?
Thank you
Just to answer what Michael said in the comment: no, if you scale an image up, the only way of guessing what is in between pixels is interpolation. This is what psychopy does and what ANY software would do. To make an analogy: take a picture of a distant tree using your digital camera. Then scale the image up using all kinds of software. You won't suddenly be able to see the individual leaves since the software had no such information as input.
If you need higher resolution, put higher resolution images in your folder. If it's simple shapes, you may use built-in methods such as visual.ShapeStim and it's variants: visual.Polygon, visual.Rect and visual.Circle. Psychopy can scale these shapes freely so they always stay sharp.
I have a PSD file for my App Interface that was designed for Retina iPhones with a resolution of 640 x 1136. I want to add support for non-retina devices and and add all image assets with both a retina and non-retina version. I find the process of resizing every ui component on photoshop individually very tedious. Does anyone know how I can auto-generate Non-Retina images from the Retina images I have already exported? Thanks
If you have Photoshop CC, you can use Adobe Generator (especially nice when paired with Russell Brown’s free Layer Namer extension). Adobe Generator automatically exports any layers whose names end with .png, and can also export multiple resolutions.
There are also some great posts on this topic by Marc Edwards on the Bjango blog; specifically: Exporting from Photoshop. His articles deal with creating a slice sheet that you export semi-automatically with scripts.
I have used both of these workflows in production. Each has its quirks, but they can both probably be made to do what you’re after.
A tip: I prefer to design at 1x and then scale up. If you design and scale down, you might make an asset an odd number of pixels wide, which could look bad when scaled down. But many graphic designers I've worked with prefer to design at 2x.
For images i am using Resizer .Quite nice and fast application.
If you're able to work from the original .psd then the free SuperExport Photoshop script might be of use. It allows you to export flattened crops (not just entire layers) at multiple resolutions by careful naming of groups and layers. Documentation is here, and an updated version that also supports 3x is here (I'm the author of the - small - 3x modification).
The benefits, as pointed out in the docs, of using the original .psd are that you can see your design in context while selectively (and easily) regenerating assets with a single click.
I'm working on a simple iOS game that's always drawing 5 to 10 layers of 32bit png images which requires enough memory to crash on the ipod touch 4g when retina enabled. On other devices it works just fine. I'm not even getting memory warnings. So I was trying with lower quality images, like RGB5_A1 format, but it looks really bad because I need alpha transparency and lots of gradients.
Since all the images are exports from Illustrator I was thinking that maybe i could just export a vector image and draw in on iOS. From what i was researching hardly anyone tried this and the only option I've come across was to implement a SVG parser for Quartz.
Did I miss anything?
Also I'm worried about performance, but I couldn't find any benchmarks.
Without knowing specifics of your game, I'm going to make a few assumptions based on normal use...
You are not going to want to use straight vector graphics for this. Stick with your raster graphics.
If you are talking about 32 bit color space for your PNG images, then you need to scale back. iOS uses 24 bit images and that includes 8 bits each for red, green, blue, and alpha. As it stands, you have an extra byte for every pixel shown.
If you are using Adobe products, import the Illustrator file into Photoshop and use the "Save for Web..." option. Choose PNG-24 and you'll be all set.