Printable View
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?
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.
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...
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.
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
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?
if you want a one time use, Gary's method is the easiest... If you want the most versitle object, then do a trace...
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
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 :D
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.
:)
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.
Well yes, if its part of a paste up which needs to be seen as a whole, normally the case for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by David O'Neil
I'd agree that a great strength of xara is its flexibility.
The minute I'd mastered the art of vectorizing line-art, with your and gnurf's help if you recall - much appreciated - I would never go back to using bitmap, that can be successfully traced - not all can, because it is restrictive IMO. Tracing in inskcape is so darned easy, xara is not too bad a lot of the time.
Still as you say - nothing wrong with beginning with the basics - still not sure exactly what Giannis had in mind :)
Both work... it all depends on the application. I like a vector shape for a signature/copyright notice on my photos... it is quick and easy... once I got the vector that is... You end up a with a crisp clear sig no matter the size and have no print worries.
Thanks for all the tips. I'll try out the different ways to do it. I don't entirely get how to turn each letter of the signature into an object so that I can work it up a little. The tracing went well however - once I got the right settings straight.
But I also have this, probably very silly, question: when I make rectangle around the signature it leaves the outline there - what do I need to do in order to get rid of it?
Refer to Gary's post above ...........
If you are refering to the background in a trace... Just select it and delete it... But make sure you don't delete the trace...:)
I went a step further myself and spent the time to work the trace down to one object... (Zooming in and adding /intersecting the different objects that form the sig)
Used the Freehand tool on a tablet, tweeked some of the path points (nodes), then converted to bitmap copy and applied the newly "discovered) bitmap feathering.
This a vector version with the Mehdi "fur" affect applied.
if I had a better version of this handwriting I could have done a better job... but it is still better than the pure vector line...
To be honest, I cannot see why anyone would choose to go the scanner and bitmap route for a signature, waste of paper and ink for starters. Unless of course it is not your own signature, and all you want is a copy of it for writing fraudulent cheques, or whatever. :D
The vector route has to be the most straightforward and flexible method, with or without a pen and tablet.
By the way, the attached is not the signature I use for cheques or credit card, in case anyone is tempted! ;)
Saludos,
Bob.
John Rayner and others interested in going the bitmap route.
Xara already includes Mehdi plugins. However, if you go to the Mehdi site you can download their free "Fine Threshold" plugin and add it to your existing Mehdi plugins folder.
You can use it to easily create a reasonably sharp, well defined, black-and-white "mask" image from even colored images and then open the bitmap gallery and apply it to your original scan as a tranparency.
See example below. If I had tweeked the image in the 2nd step using Xara's contrast controls, the mask of the sky area would probably be even clearer.
Another example using the John Hancock signature. Took all of 30 seconds to do.
I'm not against bitmap usage in Xara per se, but for handwriting, vectors seem to me to be more flexible, even if it means doing a manual trace of a bitmap.
Having said that, I'm glad you posted on Mehdi "Fine Threshold" plugin.
It looks very useful, thanks a lot.
Saludos,
Bob.
No problem Bob. I understand you perfectly, that is why I posted a vector solution first.
Nice Sig(s) Bob! Tom :)