Working up handwriting - bitmap trace?

[Giannis]

I've scanned my handwriting - I'm using my signature as an example. What I want to do is to get only the signature it to behave as an object, not the entire page I've scanned. My idea is that I could smoothen it out little if I could alter it some way. Is this possible?

[jclements]

If you can get a hold of an tablet, might I suggest you try writing you signature using Xara's Freehand tool with a low smoothing setting. Then tweeking it to look less computer generated.

[raynerj1]

sure is... Scan the sig as a greyscale object at the highest res your scanner can do. Then do a greyscale trace with xara... Works fine with for me. You have to play with the setting for the trace. the default ones are not too good...

[handrawn]

bitmap tracing is fine if your scan gives you solid balck on a soilid white background, otherwise, as John says it can be a fiddle.

Inkscape less fiddle than xara, if you have it.

[gwpriester]

Scan your signature.

Bring the scan into Xtreme and crop it. Create a rectangle that is a little larger than the signature. Select the rectangle and the bitmap and Arrange > Combine Shapes > Intersect Shapes.

If the signature is going over a background other than white, apply Flat, 0% Stained Glass transparency.

Gary

[handrawn]

Gary

what you end up with the way you suggest is an object sure, but its a rectangular one filled with the signature - technically a bitmap fill - or am I completely wrong here?

if you need to smooth the lettering you need to make each letter its own shape/object....... a bitmap fill you can only resize or recolor?

[raynerj1]

if you want a one time use, Gary's method is the easiest... If you want the most versitle object, then do a trace...

[gwpriester]

Steve - Yes it is a bitmap. But so what? The signature will be as smooth as the resolution. And unless you want to do something fancy like John is indicating, a bitmap will work just fine.

Doing a bitmap trace is going to give you a more ragged signature unless you are scanning a large hi rez bitmap.

Am I missing something here? (It would certainly not be the first time )

Gary

[handrawn]

Hi Gary

Yes guess it depends on the interpretation of the smoothing referred to in the OP.

I read it as tweaking the actual shape of the lines with shape editor tool rather than a question of 'jaggies' - but could of course be wrong - also not for first time, either

And yes a bitmap's smoothness is resolution dependent - but again that will be scan dependent - xara cannot magically increase the resolution of a bitmap beyond its original [scanned and imported] value without degradation.



To talk around the issue slightly:

As you know if you reduce a high res bitmap in size then the screen rendering at 100% will appear jaggied in xara - although it isn't as you can see if you zoom in.

It will export fine at 96dpi for screen of course - and you can use new view to see the image clearly at high zoom - but high zoom means less visible area, and if you have bitmaps of a variety of different resolutions.... well it can become a pain - and is in itself a major reason to bitmap trace, as vector screen rendering doesn't depend on size.
The other reason of course is you can do boolean with the actual letters should you wish.

You can of course do everything at 96dpi - which avoids screen rendering bitmap problems - but not if you think you might need to print.

[David O'Neil]

I think Gary's point was that a bitmap is often fine for many occasions. If you get a good 600 dpi scan of your signature, it will look good used in media from 72 to 600 dpi, and will probably even be acceptable in a 1200 dpi setting. (Do you really care if it jaggifies itself within Xara if it still outputs good?)

I believe it takes more memory than a vector version, but it is an acceptable solution. It is just one of many ways of doing things in Xara. I have somehow gotten the impression (don't ask me how!) that Gary thinks that is one of the great things about Xara--there's a multitude of ways to do almost everything.

Sometimes it's good to focus on the basics.