Our line of business application uses a Word document as a template, fills in the pertinent information and converts it to PDF, which it returns to the user.
That all works fine except for one thing. We use an image of our company's logo on the lead page and in the footer. In one resolution (e.g. 100%), it looks fine. But at higher resolutions (e.g. 250%), it has several noticeable jaggies; the diagonals have noticeable ragged edges. Tweaking the image, we're able to make it look good at the higher zoom value, but then it looks terrible at lower zoom values.
Currently, we're using a PNG, but we've tried JPG and it doesn't improve the jaggy problem. In fact, it looks worse at higher resolution because of JPG compression. I think a vector image would solve the problem (and we have the logo in vector format), but I haven't found any vector formats that Word supports.
I don't really have any code to show, since we don't do anything with the image in the code: we just take the document and plug in our values, none of which touch the logo (the template already contains the image).
We are using Word 2013 (32-bit) on Windows 8.1 (though some of our developers use Windows 7). We use the .NET PdfDocument class to generate the PDF.
Any ideas on how to get Word to be better at retaining image quality? Or is this a PDF issue?
The suggestion by David van Driessche might still work, provided the right EMF is used. EMF files can contain both raster and vector data. With a raster EMF file, the same problem will present itself as it did with PNG or JPEG. Vector EMF embedded in Word files can scale very nicely, at least when zoomed in display, so it could also work with printing or converting to PDF.
Word supports both raster and vector objects within EMFs, so the secret is to use EMFs that only contain scalable objects like lines, curves and text when quality & scaling are both concerns.
I have posted sample files here to illustrate this for anyone wishing to see the difference.
Amin Dodin
Related
Assuming a simple product demo e.g. the one found on http://www.sublimetext.com/
i.e. something this isn't traditional high res video and could be reasonable accomplished with:
animated gif
video (can be embedded youtube, custom html5 player, whatever is most competitive)
canvas
The question is, which performs better for the user? Both in terms of:
The size of the files the user must be downloaded to view the 'product demo'
The requirements in terms of processing power to display the 'product demo'
If you feel that there's a superior technology to accomplish this or another metric to judge its usefulness, let me know and I'll adjust accordingly.
I know it's already answered, but as you specifically referred to the Sublime Text animation I assume you're wanting to create something similar?
If that's the case then here is a post explaining how it was created by the Sublime Text author, himself:
http://www.sublimetext.com/~jps/animated_gifs_the_hard_way.html
The interesting part of the article is how he reduces the file size - which I believe is your question.
With a simple animation such as the one at the link you're referring to, with a very low frame rate, a simple animated-PNG of animated GIF will probably be the best solution.
However, you need to consider band-width factor in this. If the final size of the GIF or the PNG is large then probably a buffered video is probably better.
This is because the whole gif/png file needs to be downloaded before it shows (I am not sure how interleaved PNGs works when they contain animation though).
A video may be larger in file size, but as it is typically buffered you will be able to show the animation almost right away.
Using external hosts such as YouTube or others can be beneficial to your site as well as the band-width is drawn from those site and not from your server (in case you use a provider that limits or charge for this in various ways).
For more information on animated PNGs or APNG (as this is not so well-known):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG
The canvas in this is only a displaying device and not really necessary (an image container does the same job and can also animate the GIF/PNG whereas a canvas cannot).
If you use a lot of vectors then canvas can be considered.
CSS3 animation is also an option for things such as presentation slides.
I'm porting some CF 2.0 VB.Net apps to a newer version of a handset that has twice the screen resolution. So I have to double the dimensions of everything otherwise it all gets squished up into the top LH corner of the screen.
One screen had a bitmap which was 250K in size, and after I doubled the dimensions naturally it blew out to one MB. This isn't real good on a handheld, so I fired up irfanview and converted it to a .GIF. The .GIF was only 60KB in size, with no discernible change in the quality of the image.
To me, it seems a no-brainer : Convert all Bitmaps to Gif (or JPG) and get the same results for a fraction of the disk space (and probably quicker form loading times).
But does anyone know of a situation where you would use a bitmap in preference to a GIF/JPEG? I cannot find any.
I really can't think of any realistic example where you would prefer an bitmap to a GIF. Since GIF is a lossless format you loose no information when storing images. So after reading the file in your app you will have the same image data as if you have read a bitmap. And like you said: The file will be smaller and thus will probably will be read faster from disk.
JPEG is different because it's a lossy format, meaning you will lose information when storing images in it. You will need to decide if the loss of information is meaningful in your app.
Bitmaps would be preferable if and only if reading files from disk where faster than decompressing the file in memory.
And to be precise you would prefer bitmaps when storing images in main memory, so you can work easily on the data in your code. Which is actually what you most likely already have when you have loaded a file using an image library.
To cut a long story shorts, a BMP is stored as a series of pixels along with their colour. This is useful if you want to do such things as pattern recognition, movement detection and such like.
Bitmaps are typically used for their convenience - you can knock one up in paint without having specialist graphics software.
I am working on some batch routines to manage large libraries of jpg files. I have a nice routine that will quickly downsize 4mb+ files down to 40kb+. Using CCR.Exif, I can determine if an image needs to be rotated. My problem is that I can't find any code to rotate the image before I save it. I really need to be able to do this without incurring the overhead of bringing the image to screen.
I'm using the built-in jpeg.pas; I found another library by Gabriel Corneanu at CodeCentral, but it hasn't been updated for DXE2. All I need to do is a 90° rotation.
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
JPGs are compressed and must be rendered before you can work with the image data. Even if it is a non-visible canvas, they still need to be loaded into a component that renders them. Then you can use Windows API calls to rotate the image by directly accessing the canvas. I haven't rotated the image before, but I have manipulated it in other ways by accessing the canvas.
GR32 and EFG are both good sites with several components and algorithms. Here is one example on EFG's site that rotates an image. The code is Delphi 3, but it should still work fine for image manipulation.
EFG Example with Source
TImage32 has a method to rotate the image 90 degrees as well. See TImage32.Bitmap.Rotate90. TImage32 is part of the GR32 library and has been updated for Delphi-XE2.
svn co https://graphics32.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/graphics32/trunk graphics32
Also see: GR32 Homepage
If you need to rotate JPEG in steps by 90 degree, then look for lossless transformations.
For example irfanview.com has a special plugin DLL for it, though it does not have public API, but maybe you can ask Irfan Author for it or reverse-engineer it with debugger and cff explorer.
a lot of discussion might by just googled, including discussion how it is implemented.
https://www.google.ru/search?client=opera&q=lossless+jpeg+rotation
Component catalogues have that like
http://www.torry.net/quicksearchd.php?String=jpeg+lossless&Title=No
That will not work with rotation finer than 90 degree steps, but for orthogonal turns keep searchign for lossless jpeg transformations.
The fastest way to rotate a JPEG image would be to write a new / alternate pixel pump for the JPEG decoder that reads and decodes the JPEG pixels left to right (x,y), and writes them to bitmap memory as (y,x) - that is, writing one pixel per scanline at the same offset, instead of the normal mode of writing one pixel per column on the same scanline.
Anything else will be making multiple passes over the bitmap data.
What is the best way to store images for web-sites?
What size I should not exceed?
Now, I save all interface-files in png (mostly in sprites) and usual images in jpg's. Some images are about 100-150Kb.
What quality and compression should I choose while saving images?
Preparing Images
To prepare images for presentation on
the Web, follow these steps:
Begin a new file. If it’s a photo or original artwork, use 300 dpi as
the resolution. If you are creating
something simple, set the resolution
to 72 dpi.
Use the drawing, text, shape and other tools provided in the graphics
program to create your image.
Save your file in the native file format (a file type meant for editing
that is specific to the image editing
program) of the program you are using.
For example, a Photoshop document
creates files with a ".psd" extension.
If you need to make a change or edit
later, do it in this file rather than
on the Web.
If necessary, lower the resolution of the image to 72 dpi.
If necessary, resize the image to the height and width in pixels
specifications desired.
Save the file in a Web-ready file format, usually a GIF (most programs
give you several choices for file
types), finding a balance between the
way the file looks and an appropriate
file size. Some image programs will
let you preview the final file output,
whie in others, you have to save it
and load it in the browser to see the
final effect.
Preparing Photographs
To prepare photographs for
presentation on the web, follow these
steps:
Download the photo from your digital
camera or scan in the photograph. The
process for this varies depending on
the software bundled with your scanner
or camera. The image will probably end
up in "Your Photos" on Windows, or the
"Photos" folder on a Mac, unless you
chose some other folder as the default
destination.
Use the color correction, drawing, text, shape, and other tools provided
in the graphics program to alter and
improve your image.
Save a copy of your file in the native file format of the program you
are using. Make later changes or edits
in this file rather than on the web.
With photographs, save an untouched
version of the photo in case you want
to use it again for another purpose.
If necessary, lower the resolution of the image to 72dpi.
If necessary, resize the image to the height and width in pixels
specifications desired.
Save the file in a web-ready format, usually a JPEG, finding a
balance between the way the file looks
and an appropriate file size.
Making images web-ready is all about
compromise. In general, the better
your image looks, the larger the file
size will be. The larger the file
size, the longer it will take to
download. Your job is to find a
compromise between quality and file
size. Some things to consider are:
Is this image conveying crucial information? If so, go for higher
quality.
Is the image on a page with a lot of other images? If so, make the file
size smaller.
Will your web visitor be able to detect that the quality of a photo or
image isn’t very good?
Make images of people fairly high quality because visual acuity is
strongest with people’s faces.
(Source)
For your images, here is a tip:
Do not scale images in HTML
Web page designers sometimes set image
dimensions by using the width and
height attributes of the HTML image
element. Avoid doing this since it can
result in images being larger than
needed. For example, if your page
requires image myimg.jpg which has
dimensions 240x720 but displays it
with dimensions 120x360 using the
width and height attributes, then the
browser will download an image that is
larger than necessary.
(Source, see another tip)
This all depends on what the image is for. If you're generally adhering to a web-safe palette, gifs will come out smaller and clearer than a jpeg. Jpeg's are for photos. For jpegs to handle websafe colors well, you need to save at 88%+ quality, which increases file size. Png's generally have the best quality, and in some cases (when you don't need transparency) can come out smaller than jpgs, and comparable to gif. So, for jpeg photos, 80 quality, (sometimes even 75 for smaller images) will get you decent results and small filesize. Use gifs / png for site imagery generally. As far as images on a page, I try not to exceed 30kb total, assuming the page isn't something that is focused on photos / imagery. Hope this helps.
It depends on what your image is of, and what the quality needs to be, whether you choose quality over page loading etc.
I personally save all mine in .png but IE has a problem rendering the colour correctly in .png so if you are using them for aestetical purposes I would save .jpg
As to the size of the image, like said it depends really on the quality you want your image and how it affects performance if it is a large file.
i usually use save for web mode that exists in photoshop. obviously the lower size is best. The sizes that you talking about (100-150) are good or not in relation to the dimension of the image. Anyway i advice you to use sprites and when possible in jpeg format.
something like 75-80% quality are good enought to a good quality of image
And please pay attention to the cmyk mode, that cause problems in some browsers
What are some of the points that I need to follow if I want to have good quality images in a LaTeX document. These images are mostly screenshots of a software application or flow charts.
Below are two such images.
Flow Chart
Screenshot
Thanx
For diagrams, the rule is to use vector formats as much as you can — PDF, EPS or native LaTeX packages. When using vector graphics, the picture does not loose resolution and can be scaled freely. For a flow chart, I would either export it from the drawing application as a PDF, or use PGF/Tikz to produce it from LaTeX (see also examples). If your drawing application does not have a PDF export, consider using one that does — e.g., UMLet.
If you can't use vector graphics (e.g., because it is a screenshot), make sure you use high-enough resolution to begin with. If it is an academic paper, the publisher usually has guidelines for this.
If you use PDFLatex you can use png images and in those cases you definately should use png over jpeg. PNG compression is not lossy, so you get the best quality at the expense of file size.
The second important point is to create the images with sufficient resolution, for printing it should be about 300-600 dpi, higher is better but the filesize of the images and the resulting document will increase. For documents that will only be looked at a screen you can use a lower resolution, about 72-100 dpi should be enough.
For diagrams you should create vector graphics (eps or pdf) if possible, that way you do not lose any quality.
For screenshots, there is not much to do, but for flow charts, I'd suggest to create them in PDF format (vectorized) and to compile your LaTeX source with pdflatex.
for the flowchart i'd suggest TikZ, then your chart is directly typeset in TeX. Here's an example: http://www.texample.net/tikz/examples/simple-flow-chart/
Screenshots are pretty much a lost cause. I've had a good experience saving them as PDF and then embedding them, but you want to make sure you're on a high-res capture to begin with.
Charts are very easy. Most graphics programs (e.g., Vizio, OmniGraffle) will let you save it as EPS or PDF, and scaling works fairly well.