Originally Posted by
gnurf
Personally I don't think it's a good trade-off compared to results of other program's line-art tracing. I don't expect a tracer to have an optimal amount of 4 control points, but still less than 100 for a simple round shape, and if you try to smooth it the shape shouldn't be split up (why doesn't it work for xara when other programs manage to smooth?)!
I just read your Xara Bitmap Tracer vs. Adobe Live Trace!
You wrote in your tutorial (which is good, BTW):
"However, just for completeness, Guest tutorial 49 used a number of other software packages (!!!) to edit and trace the image before inserting into Xara for completion. Just to highlight that the final result is possible without ever leaving Xara, the original, unedited image used will be traced. Following the above procedure, the Xara trace is shown below and consists of just 88 shapes."
Well, I wrote the tutorial you are reffering to, and believe me, I have put a lot of time to get the workflow as much Xara concentrated as possible.
I would like to explain my workflow (no offense taken from what you wrote), as you pointed out that i use "a number of other software packages(!!!)" - the number is two, because:
In Guest tutorial 49, under "things to consider" I wrote:
"2. If you do not have Photoshop (or anything equivalent), you can scan the drawing as black & white / line art at 600 dpi. Most scanner software has a similar threshold feature like the one I used in Photoshop."
The reason I use PS is that I happen to have it, which is good as my current scanner software is crap! If I still had my old SCSI Agfa Snapscan scanner I would not have this problem (why oh why did I ever change scanner). But the thing is that you cannot open the scanner software from Xara as you can in ie photoshop - and why not do some retouching and cleanup of the scan if I have to open PS. The retouching of scans is easier in PS than Xara! And the steps I discuss in the tutorial is a way to easily get rid of dust specks and guarantee sharp lines (slightly adapted from techniques of David Blatner and Bruce Fraser).
"3. If you have sadomasochistic tendencies, you can of course use Xara X's bitmap tracer, but to achive a somewhat accurate trace you have to use max settings, which results in a lot of control points (many more than are needed) and you will have a difficult time trying to remove the unnecessary ones. If you lower the settings you will get a lot of "speckles" and "irregularities", and you will have a hard time removing all of the unnecessary small objects. (If you are reading this, Mr Moir: We need a better bitmap tracer, thank you!). Adobe Illustrator users can use the Live Trace feature, and there is, of course, other tracing software products available (even freeware)."
This is something you pointed out yourself, xara's weakness is lineart scanning: I have traced the pirate example previously and did so again. The result is that CorelTrace produces 66 objects and fewer control points vs. Xara bitmap tracer, which produces 109 objects (not 88 as you wrote) with a lot of control points (see attachment).
Both traces had the accuracy setting to 100% and we can see that the Xara trace is more "accurate" (= jagged edges - sometimes it looks good, sometimes it doesn't - it's a matter of taste). If I knew my clipart would be blown up to wall size I would probably use Xara's tracer, but with lower accuracy = smaller amount of control points the traces are easier to edit if needed. With CorelTrace I would have achieved almost the same level of accuracy with 50% as with 100%. If I try smoothing a Xara trace the "solid" object will be splitted in very peculiar ways (see my previous post or the guest tutorial), while I personally prefer the more smoothed trace CorelTrace produces. If I didn't have CorelDraw I would probably have to use Xara as I don't like using Illustrator (nothing personal like hating Adobe, but simply that I have not become familiar with the tools in Illustrator).
"4. I prefer to convert my exported EPS-files to CMYK if they will be going to prepress/print. You can use CMYK settings in Xara X, but for some reason if you for example blend two CMYK-coloured objects, the objects between the start and end ones will become RGB-coloured. Today’s more sophisticated printer RIPs can convert the RGB colors to CMYK, but may cause some peculiar colour banding when printed. Therefor, I always use RGB in Xara X, and then import the EPS file into CorelDRAW or Adobe Illustrator where I convert all objects to CMYK, and then re-export as EPS. And while I have the clipart opened in CorelDRAW, I also export a PDF version."
I think I have a typo there, the banding occurs when you use gradient fills between two cmyk-colours. When exported the fill will be converted to a blend where the "in between" objcets will have RGB-colours. Anyway, I do prepress material and depend on CMYK colours meaning I will have to use something else than Xara which cannot guarantee a CMYK-only colour space. I have and have used CorelDraw longer than Xara, and I know how to use it and like it better than Illustrator - then why not use it? So the extra numbers of software packages are CorelDraw and Photoshop, and if it wouldn't be those two, I'd still have to use something else.
Closing points: I would gladly like to skip both PS and CD, but today I cannot scan directly from Xara and I cannot "preflight" graphics for prepress or print (=guarantee consistent cmyk colour space). Both PS and CD manages those tasks, and as a bonus I get a good tracer and good retouching capabilities.
Member
Re: BY POPULAR IGNORANCE: Tracer Face-off!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks