Re: Graphic converter query - transparency

Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> > Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> > > > Sounds like `equivalent to transparency' to me - and one would
> > > > assume, in a sensible world, that the Finder would interpret
> > > > transparent parts of an image given to it to use as an icon as
> > > > `masked off bits' in that fa****on.
> > > > 
> > > > > Having a look now, if you click the tool in the toolbox that
looks
> > > > > like a T crossed out that is on the right, 3 up from the bottom
> > > > > (this is version 6 - I guess it is old, it isn't something I
use),
> > > > > you can click on a colour and all of that colour becomes
> > > > > transparent.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah - yes, so it does.  So why couldn't I find that mentioned in
the
> > > > manual?  Hmm...
> > > 
> > > Don't know. I found it in the manual.
> > > I couldn't see anything in the area of the menus I expected to see
it,
> > > so I typed 'transpa' in the manual and found it.
> > 
> > I typed `transparency', and didn't.
> 
> I get a couple of hits for that too, so we have different manuals.

So we?  I got a couple of hits - but neither was any use.

> My
> manual was one that came with my 1.25DP mac in 2003.

Really?  Hmm.  In which case, I should have the same full version of the
manual available somehow, on some Apple OS installer.  Shame I probably
can't get to it, since the Mac in question didn't last very long.

> > > It actually told me the tool was in a different place (it said 2
up),
> > > but once I knew it was there it was easy enough to find it (not that
the
> > > icon said 'transparency' in my head).
> > 
> > Such icons all need to be learnt: most of them don't make proper
sense.
> 
> But within that some are common between applications, like the letter T
> for text, some kind of pen or pencil for line, or a paint pot for fill.

I recall icons like that from MacDraw II and MacPaint (from the distant
past), but they don't appear in any other Mac applications as I use
them.

> > > It was on page 149 of the 'hagens' manual, whatever that was.
Actually
> > > that was an odd thing looking at the manuals. I just wanted the
manual,
> > > but the first option was 'Open hagens manual'.
> > 
> > I've only got the demo of the manual, whatever that means.
> 
> I guess it means you don't get page 149!

"This file is an excerpt from Hagen Henke's guide and 
contains pages 1-6 and 90-96. 
You can order the complete book in PDF format from 
www.lemkesoft.com."

> > > > Uhuh - damned awkward to do in practice, though, isn't it?  I
don't
> > > > see how I could do that job competently and I have tried using the
> > > > lasso tool.
> > > 
> > > Depends on the image - some images are easy, some not using the
'magic
> > > wand' type tool.
> > 
> > The magic wand?  I've never got any use out of that tool.  It
functions
> > as advertised as far as I can tell, but it's not a useful function as
> > far as I'm concerned.
> 
> I tend to use it a lot. It does the sort of things that I need to do
> quite well.

I don't have any tools for working on images that I can put to any use.
A good job, since I don't work with images to speak of.  I've played
around with Graphic Converter, and concluded that its image editing
functions are not useful in any practical sense since it's impossible to
get them to do sensible things.

All I've ever seen it do with the lasso and magic wand and suchlike is
just make a mess.  No, that is nothing like what I wanted, and there
seems to be no way to get it to do what I wanted.

<shrug>

I can use Graphic Converter to convert between file formats, and to crop
and zoon and change resolution and adjust brightness and contrast (etc).
The rest of what it does isn't useful.

> > > > > I don't tend to have custom icons but I reinstalled my wifes
> > > > > macbook to try and cure the wifi issues (it didn't) and she has
> > > > > them all over the palace
> > > > 
> > > > All over the palace, eh?  Moved up the property ladder, then?
> > > 
> > > Wish we had, then we would have all the chavs falling into the moat
> > > outside!
> > 
> > Not much correlation between `palace' and `moat'.
> 
> No, I was thinking of castle.

I've not met many castles with moats - at least, not with moats
containing water.

> > > > > > > You can do it in photoshop so I am
> > > > > > > sure you can do it in graphic converter
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm confused.  You seem to be telling me to use some special
tool
> > > > > > called icon tool or icon composer (which I don't have) and
also
> > > > > > Photoshop or Graphic Converter.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, I said I did it in either icon composer (which you don't
have)
> > > > 
> > > > I think I might well install the developer tools one of these
days.  But
> > > > I've got a lot of setting up to do yet.  Just got MacTeX 2007
installed
> > > > and customised to my spec and my head hurts as it usually does
when I do
> > > > that job.
> > > 
> > > I almost downloaded TeX at one point but I looked and it was huge -
many
> > > hundreds of meg
> > 
> > TeX isn't that big.  That's a full TeX distribution.  A basic LaTeX
> > distribution - essentially, TeX with the minimum extras - can be put
on
> > a handful of floppy discs (I think the smallest I've seen is two
> > floppies).
> 
> That isn't very clear on the website. 

<puzzled>  Well, why should they explain that?  You're being offered a
full TeX distribution, because `that's what people want these days'.

But that includes all sorts of extra stuff - ImageMagick, for example
(not a huge data load, but entirely `not TeX')

I've not looked to see if there are any pre-packaged `Tiny TeX'
distributions around the place at the moment.  If I wanted one such, I'd
create it myself.  There certainly used to be small TeX distros - but
I'm not sure if anyone's bothering these days.

TeXLive started to come on a DVD some time ago - CDs are too small, and
`everyone and his dog' has a computer with a DVD drive, don't they?

>It seems much more 'here is the
> download, it is 744Mb'. 

Yes, that's right.  What else?  You get offered the standard full distro
with a Mac installer.

<shrug>  I'm very puzzled.

>Tried it anyway. It started downloading at
> 338k/s,

Seems like about the data rate one would expect, too.

> so I thought I would reboot the rooter, as it has been a bit
> slow recently. 

I don't understand this bit.  Why didn't you just leave it to download?
It would have turned up in less than an hour.

>After that it wouldn't download anymore.
> I guess I will try it later.

<http://mirror.ctan.org/systems/mac/mactex/MacTeX.dmg>

is downloading here at - so far - an average data rate of 600+ kB/s.

> > Even a full TeX distribution takes up less space than MS Office, and
it
> > makes much more efficient use of CPU and RAM.
> 
> I have no shortage of CPU and RAM, so that really doesn't matter to me.

But you seem to have been whinging about the size of the TeX distro.

> I also have to have office anyway, so I am not saving anything.

If no part of MS Office is running, you're saving CPU.  You might say
that doesn't matter - well, I find it an affront to my sensibilities to
have an application idling but using CPU anyway.

TeX doesn't idle.  It runs, then stops.

> > > and it was the first time I had got close to my download
> > > limit so I didn't.
> > > Truth to tell I have no need for it, especially as I am one
assignment
> > > away from fini****ng my Open University degree!
> > 
> > <shrug>  Need?  The main point of tools on computers is to make life
> > easier.  LaTeX makes some jobs easier.  If you don't have such jobs to
> > do, or can't be bothered to make your life easier, then you've made
the
> > right decision.
> > 
> > I use LaTeX because it's quicker and higher quality than anything else
I
> > could possibly have access to; and because the file format's got
better
> > long-term prospects than pretty much anything else (XML promises to be
> > better - but we shall have to see, won't we?)
> 
> Well, I have a lot of XML.

There are tools for using TeX to process XML for final output.

> > Another point is that if you want access to fancy typography, XeTeX is
> > one of the easier ways of doing it on Macs as far as I can tell for
all
> > that it's completely anti-wysiwyg and generally `not the Mac way at
> > all'.  At least it works properly (more or less), which is more than
you
> > can say for the Apple-supplied fancy typography tools I've looked at.
> > 
> > If you don't care about that, but want access to high quality
> > typesetting, you only have two choices: TeX (any flavour) and InDesign
-
> > those two are in the same league as each other, and nothing else
> > available comes close.  InDesign takes more space on disc, takes more
> > CPU, and costs infinitely more ('cos TeX's free).
> 
> I have indesign as well, just not on this machine.

Don't use anything else for your text output, then.  TeX or InDesign -
you've got access to the best of the best, so don't use the ****e.

[snip]

> > > > Still, I tend to grab the real calculator any time I need to do a
bit of
> > > > arithmetic.  It's a lot quicker to use.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > Thing is, that's what Mac Help appears to tell me to do.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Ahh.. never read that!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > <shrug>  What else can one do?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Play around with it until it works generally.
> > > > 
> > > > I've tried that with Graphic Converter for many many years and you
know
> > > > what?  I can't get it to work as I want.
> > > 
> > > Same here, which is probably one of the reasons I never use graphic
> > > converter. In fact I greatly dislike it.
> > 
> > But what else is there?
> 
> Well, I use photoshop but i have other tools as well.

Photoshop is inaccessible to most people due to the price.  What else is
there?

> > FWIW, it does the job of converting between formats very nicely,
thanks.
> 
> It does. Not as good as debabilizer used to do on OS7, but that is long
> gone.

For the jobs I had, I always preferred Graphic Converter to DeBabelizer
(which I think I have somewhere).  What do you think DeBabelizer was
better at?  ISTR GKON being able to do stuff that DeBabelizer couldn't
do at all.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
                            http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking