Hitch exporting 'Clipping Group' as graphic

[covoxer]

May be.
Returning to the post #1 - why would anyone export a vector object as a bitmap to import it back into WD? The only reason to do such manipulation is to produce background tile (since there's no "create bitmap copy" option in WD). But you don't have a size problem with background tiles.

Actually, I have not seen a single report on this forum, that describes situation when user really needed to import large image into an object of the image size. Have I missed it?

[steve.ledger]

The only reason to do such manipulation is to produce background tile

Well I don't think that is for you to decide.
'Freedom of design' is just that. Constraints there may be, but the user needs to decide which restrictions are are important to them for *their* design and site purpose.
Of course, if Xara feel they need to hand-hold then perhaps WD is a toy??

[NeilH]

For those confident with editing the registry you can turn off this 'resize to 500 on import' behaviour. Set the following option in the registry to 0:-

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Xara\WebDesigner\5.0\Op tions\Filters\ResizeToPixelSize

Neil
Xara

[covoxer]

Just explaining why we did it this way. I don't say it is the best way around.
But this is not a constrain. It doesn't influence functionality. It's an interface feature. We have many of them. Sometimes trying to streamline one operation we may reduce convenience of the other which we think is less important. But while all bitmaps are imported at their native resolution you can't say it is a constrain.
Toy, not a toy... depends on how you use it. But think about it - you don't call it a toy because we have removed tons of features and tools comparing to Xtreme. And now this minor change prevails. Is it so important? Is it easier to substitute missing tools than to set object size manually?

[gbpatriot]

Returning to the post #1 - why would anyone export a vector object as a bitmap to import it back into WD?

Fair enough question Covoxer. In the process of learning XWD I had recreated a Xara banner just to get a feel of the built-in drawing tools. It was then I discovered that XWD lacks the brilliant clipping group feature of XX. So I cut and pasted the banner into XX and used clipping group to crop it to exactly the size I needed. This done, I copied and pasted the banner back into XWD.

With that test ticked off my list, I decided to test out the bitmap export and import feature using my clipping group banner.
This was when I became curious about the reduced size of the re-imported image, initially suspecting the clipping group.

Having now read the help files , had the system explained, and got a fix to import JPEGS and PNGs at 100% I better understand this particular feature.

Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread.

[ankhor]

May be.
Returning to the post #1 - why would anyone export a vector object as a bitmap to import it back into WD?

Yep your are right, I design the sites in XX4 where I can use all the whissles and bells. And what needs to be bitmapped (because XWD has no life effects etc.) I bitmap and drop in XWD (well actually copy paste).

[steve.ledger]

It was then I discovered that XWD lacks the brilliant clipping group feature of XX. .

Would not Arrange>>Combine Shapes>>Intersect give you the same end result as a clipping to crop a group ?

[gbpatriot]

Of course you're right Sledger, there is a workaround to the clipping group, but I have used XX for so long now I instinctively reach for my familiar toolbox.
XX has been my choice of vector app since I abandoned Illustrator some 3 years ago. With XX4 I can create a good 80% of my illustration work in a fraction of the time it took using Adobe's overpriced product.
I use it for everything from digital calligraphy to product illustration:

http://www.talkgraphics.com/showthread.php?t=21094
http://www.talkgraphics.com/showthread.php?t=25835
http://www.talkgraphics.com/showthread.php?t=22669


XX fits my needs comfortably - like a favourite pair of jeans. I never even felt the need to upgrade to XX4 Pro. Even so, there are far more talented artists using XX than I can ever aspire to be.

Indeed, it is the sole reason why I decided to purchase XWD, hoping for similar great value and performance. But while I am beguiled with it's features and innovative approach to web authoring, I confess I'm not the sharpest knife in the box when it comes to web creation. So, still a lot to learn from XWD and this excellent forum.
My aim is to eventually build a site to showcase my work and perhaps attract some comissions. But for that I need to master forms and product selling online.

As I get older I become more cautious posting to forums in case I make a complete ass of myself!

Ray

[vtechdev]

Just explaining why we did it this way. I don't say it is the best way around.
But this is not a constrain. It doesn't influence functionality. It's an interface feature. We have many of them. Sometimes trying to streamline one operation we may reduce convenience of the other which we think is less important. But while all bitmaps are imported at their native resolution you can't say it is a constrain.
Toy, not a toy... depends on how you use it. But think about it - you don't call it a toy because we have removed tons of features and tools comparing to Xtreme. And now this minor change prevails. Is it so important? Is it easier to substitute missing tools than to set object size manually?

Hi John,
I'm totally with you on making decision that balance various needs, I would like to bring in one more issue to this tread, and offer a suggestion.
First the extra issue, memory usage. I like the 500px optimization idea, and understand exactly about the 12Mp image drop needing to be scaled for web output, but it desparetly needs to be scaled for memory usage at design time too! I think a happy middle ground would be a global setting for the program where you control the options. We can all argue the finer points of what the defaults should be, but I think you need to offer the following options.
Default image optimization size (currently 500) allow the user to set this globally for the program.
Second, allow an option where you could turn on or off a dialog that would request the image size for each import giving the flexible folks that option. Finally a setting for the max image size saved in the bitmap gallery so that people with large camera files will automatically have the huge image scaled to conserve memory, this size will be larger than the optimize size for output but still smaller the the native camera 12 or 8 MP size.
I think if you offered these options it would make a significant improvement on overall usability.

[nickydude]

(because XWD has no life effects etc.)

Oh but it does.