bulia byak wrote:
>On 4/22/05, MoNKi <lsmonki-basura@...> wrote:
>>And why not convert automatically the transparent areas to a bitmap when exporting a PS?
>>We can't always does the "Dropper tool trick" with complex transparencies.
>>This is the way Freehand and Illustrator does it.
>1 Because when I export PS, I want to get PS, not an embedded bitmap.
>I am supposed to know the capabilities of PS and create my design
>accordingly. If I really want a bitmap in PS, I want to create and
>embed it myself with full control over resolution, colors, etc. An
>_unexpected_ embedded bitmap often means the PS file has become simply
>2 Because PS is a dead end format, not worth putting lots of
>resources into. Better spend the same resources on supporting PDF with
1. When I export a PS, I want a PS too, but if this PS dosn't support
all svg features, at least I want an aproximation of it. I don't suggest
a full "bitmapped" PS, only bitmaps instead of transparent areas and
this bitmaps inside clipping paths, this clipping path should be the
original transparent object path, and a warning telling you something
like this on save time: "Warning: PS files don't support transparency,
this transparency will be interpreted as bitmaps", and then a dialog
asking you the bitmap resolution. There is no need to ask for colors,
etc... the colors should be the same as if it supported transparency.
This way semi transparent shadows could be added and exported to PS,
EPS, ... Or add special effects to vector shapes, like bevels, blurs,
... saving this parts as bitmaps and the rest as vectors.**
2. EPS files aren't as dead and also has this problem.
Is only an opinion. The users shouldn't have to know the capabilities of
PS because usually they are artist, not programmers. They do a design,
and then export it as EPS, svg, png... without knowing all the formats
in the world.