Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 915
From: Digest <deadmail>
To: "OS/2GenAu Digest"<deadmail>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:01:10 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600

**************************************************
Saturday 14 August 2004
 Number  915
**************************************************

Subjects for today
 
1   Expanding graphics : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
2  Re:  Expanding graphics : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
3  Re:  Expanding graphics : Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
4  Re:  Expanding graphics : John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
5  Re:  Expanding graphics : Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
6  Re:  Expanding graphics : brianb at kdfisher dot com dot au
7  Re:  Expanding graphics : Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
8  Re:  Expanding graphics : Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
9  Re:  Expanding graphics : Dennis Nolan <dennik at swiftdsl dot com dot au>
10  Re:  Expanding graphics : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
11  Re:  Expanding graphics : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
12  Re:  Expanding graphics : Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
13  Re:  Expanding graphics : Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
14  Re:  Ecomstation 1.2 : David Shearer" <dshe5874 at bigpond dot net dot au>
15  Re:  Expanding graphics : Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>

**= Email   1 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:16:02 +1000
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:   Expanding graphics

Can anyone suggest a (preferably OS/2 based) graphics
program that is capable of expanding a small graphic with
pixelisation ? Perhaps I just need to convert to a different
graphic type before "stretchin" it ?

I'm talking about a large expansion - from Icon like size to
A3 size.

Any ideas or suggestions ??

Cheers/2

Ed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   2 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:25:55 +1000
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

That should have said WITHOUT not WITH Pixelisation !

Ed Durrant wrote:

> Can anyone suggest a (preferably OS/2 based) graphics
> program that is capable of expanding a small graphic with
> pixelisation ? Perhaps I just need to convert to a different
> graphic type before "stretchin" it ?
>
> I'm talking about a large expansion - from Icon like size to
> A3 size.
>
> Any ideas or suggestions ??
>
> Cheers/2
>
> Ed.
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   3 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:39:34 +1000
From:  Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

Ed Durrant wrote:

>Can anyone suggest a (preferably OS/2 based) graphics
>program that is capable of expanding a small graphic with
>pixelisation ? Perhaps I just need to convert to a different
>graphic type before "stretchin" it ?
>
>I'm talking about a large expansion - from Icon like size to
>A3 size.
>
>Any ideas or suggestions ??
>
>Cheers/2
>
>Ed.
>  
>

Hi Ed,

To be able to do that successfully, without pixelization, you'd need to 
have scanned the original small image at about 4000x4000 resolution, and 
saved it in a lossless format.

Unless you use a vector-oriented program like [the former] Micrografx 
Designer [32,000 layers] and "hand-paint" the blown-up image.
If the image is high enough resolution to "trace" successfully, you can 
then zoom it successfully. I still run it under WINOS2 [Designer 
3D-Technical Edition 4.1x]

HTH

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------
[ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
[Please use zipped versions of above]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   4 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:46:19 +1000 (AEST)
From:  "John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:25:55 +1000, Ed Durrant wrote:

To my untrained ear, that sounds like the graphics equivalent of scaling up a
font from footnote to Banner Headline size...

Does that require a vector format rather than a bitmapped format?

Ed, do you have any of the usual suspects? Embellish, PMView Pro, PMJpeg ?
Have you tried any of them?

Best regards
John Angelico
OS/2 SIG
talldad at kepl dot com dot au
________________________
   
>That should have said WITHOUT not WITH Pixelisation !
>
>Ed Durrant wrote:
>
>> Can anyone suggest a (preferably OS/2 based) graphics
>> program that is capable of expanding a small graphic with
>> pixelisation ? Perhaps I just need to convert to a different
>> graphic type before "stretchin" it ?
>>
>> I'm talking about a large expansion - from Icon like size to
>> A3 size.
>>
>> Any ideas or suggestions ??
>>
>> Cheers/2
>>
>> Ed.
>>
>
>>  
>
>

> 

>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   5 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:50:53 +1000
From:  Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

John Angelico wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:25:55 +1000, Ed Durrant wrote:
>
>To my untrained ear, that sounds like the graphics equivalent of scaling up a
>font from footnote to Banner Headline size...
>
>Does that require a vector format rather than a bitmapped format?
>
>Ed, do you have any of the usual suspects? Embellish, PMView Pro, PMJpeg ?
>Have you tried any of them?
>
>Best regards
>John Angelico
>OS/2 SIG
>talldad at kepl dot com dot au
>________________________
>   
>  
>
>>That should have said WITHOUT not WITH Pixelisation !
>>
>>Ed Durrant wrote:
>>
>>>Can anyone suggest a (preferably OS/2 based) graphics
>>>program that is capable of expanding a small graphic with
>>>pixelisation ? Perhaps I just need to convert to a different
>>>graphic type before "stretchin" it ?
>>>
>>>I'm talking about a large expansion - from Icon like size to
>>>A3 size.
>>>
>>>Any ideas or suggestions ??
>>>
>>>Cheers/2
>>>

Hi John,

Yes has to be vector not raster!

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------
[ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
[Please use zipped versions of above]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   6 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:39:24 +1030
From:  brianb at kdfisher dot com dot au
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

Ed,
If its a bitmap format you will need to vectorise it.
If you have access to corel draw 9 on a wnidows machine
that will do the conversion.
I don't know of an OS/2 solution.

-----------------------------------------
Brian Butler
System Administrator
brianb at kdfisher dot com dot au

                                                                                                                                     
                      Ed Durrant                                                                                                     
                      <edurrant at bigpond        To:       os2genau at os2 dot org dot au                                                         
                       dot net dot au>                 cc:                                                                                   
                                               Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics                                           
                      14/08/2004 15:55                                                                                               
                      Please respond to                                                                                              
                      os2genau                                                                                                       

That should have said WITHOUT not WITH Pixelisation !

Ed Durrant wrote:

> Can anyone suggest a (preferably OS/2 based) graphics
> program that is capable of expanding a small graphic with
> pixelisation ? Perhaps I just need to convert to a different
> graphic type before "stretchin" it ?
>
> I'm talking about a large expansion - from Icon like size to
> A3 size.
>
> Any ideas or suggestions ??
>
> Cheers/2
>
> Ed.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   7 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:55:44 +0200
From:  Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

Ed Durrant schreef:

>I'm talking about a large expansion
>

Size of graphics are set by resolution,

> - from Icon like size to
>A3 size.
>
>  
>
That would give an most unpleasent result I'm afraid (supposed the icon 
has the size (=resolution) of an icon indeed.

The opposite is quite  do-able of course.

>Any ideas or suggestions ??
>
>
>  
>
Read the chapter about Thumbnails in the PMview manual.

-- 
Groeten uit Gent,

   Kris

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   8 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 10:00:12 +0200
From:  Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

Mike O'Connor schreef:

> To be able to do that successfully, without pixelization, you'd need 
> to have scanned the original small image at about 4000x4000 
> resolution, and saved it in a lossless format.
>
Indeed.

> Unless you use a vector-oriented program like [the former] Micrografx 
> Designer [32,000 layers] and "hand-paint" the blown-up image.

And unless you have a scanner  which scans at real 4000*4000 resolution.

With PMview you can alter resolution  to 4000x4000 too. But that is with 
pixellisation of course. Not a good idea anyway.

-- 
Groeten uit Gent,

   Kris

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   9 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:32:23 +1000
From:  Dennis Nolan <dennik at swiftdsl dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

Kris Steenhaut wrote:

>
>
> Mike O'Connor schreef:
>
>> To be able to do that successfully, without pixelization, you'd need 
>> to have scanned the original small image at about 4000x4000 
>> resolution, and saved it in a lossless format.
>>
> Indeed.
>
>> Unless you use a vector-oriented program like [the former] Micrografx 
>> Designer [32,000 layers] and "hand-paint" the blown-up image.
>
>
> And unless you have a scanner  which scans at real 4000*4000 resolution.
>
> With PMview you can alter resolution  to 4000x4000 too. But that is 
> with pixellisation of course. Not a good idea anyway.
>
Strangly PMView Pro does a reasonable job of enlarging icons, 
unfortunately they look very fuzzy and out of focus. It looks like they 
do an expand and blur operation, may even do it incremently.

But there is not pixelation as we know it.

Regards

Dennis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   10 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:46:56 +1000
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

I have tried PMView 2000 without success - it pixelates.

Cheers/2

Ed.

John Angelico wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:25:55 +1000, Ed Durrant wrote:
>
> To my untrained ear, that sounds like the graphics equivalent of scaling up a
> font from footnote to Banner Headline size...
>
> Does that require a vector format rather than a bitmapped format?
>
> Ed, do you have any of the usual suspects? Embellish, PMView Pro, PMJpeg ?
> Have you tried any of them?
>
> Best regards
> John Angelico
> OS/2 SIG
> talldad at kepl dot com dot au
> ________________________
>
> >That should have said WITHOUT not WITH Pixelisation !
> >
> >Ed Durrant wrote:
> >
> >> Can anyone suggest a (preferably OS/2 based) graphics
> >> program that is capable of expanding a small graphic with
> >> pixelisation ? Perhaps I just need to convert to a different
> >> graphic type before "stretchin" it ?
> >>
> >> I'm talking about a large expansion - from Icon like size to
> >> A3 size.
> >>
> >> Any ideas or suggestions ??
> >>
> >> Cheers/2
> >>
> >> Ed.
> >>
> >
> >>  
> >
> >

> > 

> >
> >
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   11 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:53:59 +1000
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

brianb at kdfisher dot com dot au wrote:

> Ed,
> If its a bitmap format you will need to vectorise it.
> If you have access to corel draw 9 on a wnidows machine
> that will do the conversion.
> I don't know of an OS/2 solution.
>
> -----------------------------------------

Can you give me the extention / format name of a vectorised graphics format ??  Then I can see
what I can find to vectorise the graphic.

Cheers/2

Ed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   12 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:05:12 +1000
From:  Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

Kris Steenhaut wrote:

> Mike O'Connor schreef:
>
>> To be able to do that successfully, without pixelization, you'd need 
>> to have scanned the original small image at about 4000x4000 
>> resolution, and saved it in a lossless format.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> Unless you use a vector-oriented program like [the former] Micrografx 
>> Designer [32,000 layers] and "hand-paint" the blown-up image. 
>
Also works down to micron resolution - but as Corel bought them out - 
maybe Corel  has the same feature nowadays - haven't used it since about 
V5/6 - it was previously visibly inferior IMO because MGX used integer 
math, whereas Corel used the inferior floating-point math.

> And unless you have a scanner  which scans at real 4000*4000 resolution.
>
> With PMview you can alter resolution  to 4000x4000 too. But that is 
> with pixellisation of course. Not a good idea anyway.

Hi Kris,
I wasn't talking about 4000 pixels x 4000 pixels - but about 4000 dpi >> 
16M per sq.inch! ;-)

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------
[ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
[Please use zipped versions of above]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   13 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 15:05:56 +0200
From:  Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

Dennis Nolan schreef:

> Kris Steenhaut wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mike O'Connor schreef:
>>
>>> To be able to do that successfully, without pixelization, you'd need 
>>> to have scanned the original small image at about 4000x4000 
>>> resolution, and saved it in a lossless format.
>>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>> Unless you use a vector-oriented program like [the former] 
>>> Micrografx Designer [32,000 layers] and "hand-paint" the blown-up 
>>> image.
>>
>>
>>
>> And unless you have a scanner  which scans at real 4000*4000 resolution.
>>
>> With PMview you can alter resolution  to 4000x4000 too. But that is 
>> with pixellisation of course. Not a good idea anyway.
>>
> Strangly PMView Pro does a reasonable job of enlarging icons,

I am a PMview supporter (and translator) you know. PMview does an 
excellent job on enlarging. That is, it goes further, it does more than 
most alike programs with less loss of quality. But it can't go byond the 
bounderies of physics of course.

> unfortunately they look very fuzzy and out of focus. It looks like 
> they do an expand and blur operation, may even do it incremently.

To expand an icon sized image to A3 (that is about twice the "letter" 
format) without hardware intermediance is a job to hard to do I'm afraid.
Mike made  the proper suggestion: scan the image at 4000x4000 at least.

An on paper an inch sized coloured image scanned at  2400x2400 is 
already 22,8 MB on disk, so at 4000x4000 we have over 45 MB.

Impos/2 doesn't go byond 2400x2400 dpi, Tame/2 doesn't go byond 1600x1600.

So it is not an easy job. And remember, scanners boasting about 4800 dpi 
etc... in reality only do 600x600 in black and white, and even less in 
colours.

> But there is not pixelation as we know it.
>
> Regards
>
> Dennis.
>
 
>
> 

>
>

-- 
Groeten uit Gent,

   Kris

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   14 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:09:23 +1000
From:  "David Shearer" <dshe5874 at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Ecomstation 1.2

Now that it has been formally announced it is probably a good idea to have a serious think about whether to 
upgrade.

I am a bit confused by the subscription issue - if you don't get this does this mean you won't get free fixes with 
1.2 as delivered now via ecsmt?  I can understand it also applies to enhancements.

The reference to enhanced multimedia etc are vague - what does that mean?  A complete overhaul?

It seems to me that the 1.2 is simply a manufacturer's refresh.  But I could be naive or wrong.  Don't get me 
wrong I am a strong supporter and would upgrade just to support ecs's future - but equally we need adequate 
info in order to make that decision.  Obviously it is early days and maybe I should wait for the first major review 
by someone who has installed it etc.

David

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   15 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 14 Aug 2004 15:12:08 +0200
From:  Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
Subject:  Re:  Expanding graphics

Mike O'Connor schreef:

>
>
> Hi Kris,
> I wasn't talking about 4000 pixels x 4000 pixels - but about 4000 dpi 
> >> 16M per sq.inch! ;-)
>
Indeed. I stand corrected.

-- 
Groeten uit Gent,

   Kris

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------