August 2013 Tips and Tricks: Mapping Text to Wafting Fabric

[csehz]

Ernie that is great how you did, please keep posting on the forum

[angelize]

I've used a different approach. My perspective is off on this one now that I look at it again but here is how I did the text. first I took note of the resolution of the paper bag photo which is 96 dpi

I molded the text to the bag then converted it to editable shapes. with my text group still selected I went to the transparency tool and chose bitmap from the drop down list of transparency shapes this gives you the default striped bitmap so on the info bar I opened the bitmap name dropdown and chose the paperbag bitmap and set the transpaency to stained glass. Lastly I clicked on the text group (while still in the transparency tool) anywhere just as long as you don't click the transparency handles. This brings up a fractal resolution box and I typed in the resolution of the paper bag bitmap (96 dpi)

[stygg2003]

That is great way of doing the Text Francis and gives a great finish, it looks part of the bag and not plonked on it Going to give your technique a try as well as Ernie's, but your method seems quicker and less fiddly, no offense to Ernie's method as I will try both. Thanks Francis for sharing.

Stygg

@ Ernie - thank you for showing how you did it.

[Big Frank]

I think what this thread proves is that there are many ways in Xara to produce extremely realistic effects, especially if you're doing web work, but if your end result requires a high resolution, e.g. for printing onto quality magazines (1200 or even 2400 dpi) exhibition stand panels or advertising hoardings, the vector path is the better one for scalability. Remeber, if you're printing in a high quality magazine, an 8 inch by 10 inch image with a 300dpi resolution would have a pixel dimension of 2400 px (8x300=2400) by 3000 px ( 10 x 300=3000), so unless your image displays crispy at that size in Xara, you're better off using vector for that media type. But for web work, the quick and dirty path is the obvious path where speed and efficiency matter.

[stygg2003]

Thanks for that info. Frank, I'm not up to scratch about size, printing, dpi and
such, so all info. welcome. Anyway after looking at the methods used by Ernie
and Francis, I did one with elements from both.

Stygg

[Gare]

Let me point out a minor caveat regarding outputting text to 300dpi: you're never going to get text as sharp as with outputting vector art, close, but I tried using 300dpi text as art in a book once, and at small sizes, it still came out fuzzy compared to vector files sent to a PostScript imagesetter.

Say you export some vector shapes, okay text shapes, to Xara EPS file format, and send the file off to the poor misguided publisher that doesn't use Xara for Desktop Publishing but instead has foolishly chosen InDesign. They place that EPS file where it needs to go, and when the PostScript imagesetter hits the vector part of the file, the instructions are to print this area at as high a resolution as the imagesetter is capable.

I haven't seen a lot of difference between a high res bitmap and a vector rendered to dots, but my experience has been is visible, at large display sizes.

My Best,

Gary

[Big Frank]

Let me point out a minor caveat regarding outputting text to 300dpi... I haven't seen a lot of difference between a high res bitmap and a vector rendered to dots, but my experience has been is visible, at large display sizes.

I agree. If you possibly can export to a vector format, I would do so. I've never had any problems sending Xara art to the printers as PDF, but even then sometimes you have to fiddle to remove PDF artefacts.

[Big Frank]

Anyway after looking at the methods used by Ernie
and Francis, I did one with elements from both.

Looks like you bagged it this time, Stygg

[ernie-f]

Hi to all Xaraistas!

I would say the pure vector objects, which fills and transparencies should meet the requirements of PostScript.

Now it is so that PostScript (EPS) is an old format and is no longer developed since 1999. EPS is a Container, it can be vectors, text, and images. A major drawback of EPS, it does not support transparency.
Therefore, Adobe has stopped the development of EPS.

In today's workflow is working with PDF. In the printing industry PDF is standardized and certified as such by the ECI.
In Germany there is no printing service that works with the old PostScript.

The advantage of PDF is the native support of transparencies from version 1.6.
Unfortunately, during exposure, a problem: most of the service bureau work with a PostScript imagesetter RIP. This means that all Transparencen be expected flat. At this point in the workflow that is not tragic because now no more transparency is needed.

Adobe has already solved the problem and with APE (Adobe Print Engine) created a new standard that can exposed native transparencies on film or plate.

This prevents, for example that Shadow over a text is being flattens in PostScript imagesetter to a bitmap, with APE but the text will continue to be output as vectors.
Still, it is relatively expensive and not all service providers have switched to APE.

What does this mean for my work with Xara?
If I do not produce for digital or offset printing once nothing.

Do I need to pass data to agencies or other service providers, I have to vote on which they are compatible with the program used my work. This is not easy, because Illu, CorelDraw, Inkscape SVG SerifDraw and are not compatible with all native fills and transparencies from Xara.

As I forced to work with all those programs, I know from my experience, that all radial and linear gradients and transparencies are also supported in the other programs. Problems make ready oval courses. Transitions can also interpret all programs.
Problems already make oval gradients. Fethering is not always recognized correctly.

It is always important to communicate with his client and clarify what our work that we create in Xara should happen.

Servus Ernie

[steve.ledger]

Excellent post, Ernie