Re: Graphic converter query - transparency

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 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.

ahh, ok, I thought you meant you had none.

> > 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.

Mine was retired a few months ago, for an iMac 24". However, it is still
working.

> > > > 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.

They appear in all the adobe/macromedia applications, pixelmator and a
few other utilities that I have, so from here it seems normal.

> > > > 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."

hmm.. I am sure I didn't download anything separate. Graphic converter
is not something I use under normal cir***stances.
I guess it was something in the apple installed version.

> > > > > 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 think that what you are doing is the core of what its uses are, hence
the name.

> > > > > > 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.

I have been to castles with moats containing water, and castles that
used to have water, although most moats were dry so you could shoot
people in there.
I spent most of my childhood being dragged from one castle to the next.
My dad was keen on the things.

> > > > > > > > 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?

Why shouldn't they?

>  You're being offered a
> full TeX distribution, because `that's what people want these days'.

Well, I didn't so that is obviously not the case.

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

Useful as I already had it.

> 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.

Maybe you, not me. I expected faster than that. Why would I expect
338k/s?

> > 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.

Because it was on my laptop and I couldn't leave my laptop open for an
hour, so I thought if it was going to go slowly I needed to download it
on a desktop.

> >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.

Yes, I downloaded it later at that speed. So I guess you must have been
suprised as you said you would expect around 338k/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.

<puzzled> why does the download size have anything to do with the CPU or
RAM?

> > 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.

Obviously, it is a processor rather than an editor.

> > > 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.

Depends on what you want your text output to be. Some of my text output
(and input) has to be in word format.
Which is a shame, but it pays the bills.

> [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?

Pixelmator works ok. 

> > > 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.

DeBabilizer had a few formats I used that graphic converter couldnt' do.
I don't remember what they were now, but I know that graphic converter
wouldn't do it. It also had more controlls over format and a few other
tools.
It was also easier to use.




-- 
Woody

www.alienrat.com