GC header gets pixilated

[Robert Poland]

Hi, Using OS 10..4.3 and GraphicConverter 5.7.4bx; I have this script i use to adjust the color, etc of pictures and add a date in the border. It works great for 1200 X 1600 pictures, but when I try it on a 300 X 400 picture it gets severely pixilated. The pictures are printed using the fill page option, although the error is evident in the display. This is the segment of code in question... tell window 1 set {picWidth, picHeight} to image dimension set fontSize to (round (0.014 * picWidth)) -- nom 16 point set picCenter to picWidth / 2 as integer change margins with {0, (0.036 * picHeight), 0, 0} draw textline into text nameDate justification 2 color {0, 0, 0} point {picCenter, (0.028 * picHeight)} font "Arial" size fontSize with antialias end tell I'm sure the problem has to do with the screen pixil count, but why I don't see? Any ideas? Tia, -- Bob Poland - Fort Collins, CO http://www.ibrb.org/

[Marino Pascal]

Robert Poland wrote: >Hi, > >Using OS 10..4.3 and GraphicConverter 5.7.4bx; > >I have this script i use to adjust the color, etc of pictures and add >a date in the border. It works great for 1200 X 1600 pictures, but >when I try it on a 300 X 400 picture it gets severely pixilated. > I don't know much about about AppleScript but I do know that a 300x400 picture printed at any size bigger than 2x3 inches will always appear pixelated and certainly a lot more pixelated than a 1200x1600. I hope you are not changing the resolution of the picture in order to print it smaller. If you want to print large images smaller you should do it by changing the printer preferences. Marino

[Robert Poland]

>Robert Poland wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>Using OS 10..4.3 and GraphicConverter 5.7.4bx; >> >>I have this script i use to adjust the color, etc of pictures and add >>a date in the border. It works great for 1200 X 1600 pictures, but >>when I try it on a 300 X 400 picture it gets severely pixilated. >> >I don't know much about about AppleScript but I do know that a 300x400 >picture printed at any size bigger than 2x3 inches will always appear >pixelated and certainly a lot more pixelated than a 1200x1600. > > >I hope you are not changing the resolution of the picture in order to >print it smaller. >If you want to print large images smaller you should do it by changing >the printer preferences. > >Marino In re-reading my email I see that I wasn't clear, The picture is of enough resolution that it works fine. The text is where the problem is, it get changed to a resolution that is not sufficient to make legible text. Thanks, -- Bob Poland - Fort Collins, CO http://www.ibrb.org/

[Marino Pascal]

Robert Poland wrote: >In re-reading my email I see that I wasn't clear, The picture is of >enough resolution that it works fine. > >The text is where the problem is, it get changed to a resolution that >is not sufficient to make legible text. > > In that case lets look at your script again ... Your script sets the font size relative to the image width >set fontSize to (round (0.014 * picWidth)) -- nom 16 point > If the picWidth is 1600 the font size will be 22.4 If the picWidth is 400 the font size will be 5.6 Yes, 5.6 fontsize would be too small to read. Perhaps you should set the font size to a fixed size to avoid this problem or change the 0.014 in the calculation to 0.02 so that you'll get a font size 8 in the 400 wide pictures and a 32 font size on the 1600 wide pictures. Otherwise you may want to try saving as PNG or some other non lossy format instead of JPG. JPG is not meant to display text especially tiny text. Marino

[Robert Poland]

>Robert Poland wrote: > >>In re-reading my email I see that I wasn't clear, The picture is of >>enough resolution that it works fine. >> >>The text is where the problem is, it get changed to a resolution that >>is not sufficient to make legible text. >> >> >In that case lets look at your script again ... >Your script sets the font size relative to the image width > >>set fontSize to (round (0.014 * picWidth)) -- nom 16 point >> >If the picWidth is 1600 the font size will be 22.4 >If the picWidth is 400 the font size will be 5.6 >Yes, 5.6 fontsize would be too small to read. Nit - 22 rounded is 22 and 5.6 rounded is 5. >Perhaps you should set the font size to a fixed size to avoid this >problem or change the 0.014 in the calculation to 0.02 so that you'll >get a font size 8 in the 400 wide pictures and a 32 font size on the >1600 wide pictures. >Otherwise you may want to try saving as PNG or some other non lossy >format instead of JPG. >JPG is not meant to display text especially tiny text. The picture width may be 400, but sizing to fill the page should make it the same size as the larger one that is shrunk to fit. >Marino -- Bob Poland - Fort Collins, CO http://www.ibrb.org/

[Marino Pascal]

Robert Poland wrote: > >> > >In that case lets look at your script again ... > >Your script sets the font size relative to the image width > > > >>set fontSize to (round (0.014 * picWidth)) -- nom 16 point > >> > >If the picWidth is 1600 the font size will be 22.4 > >If the picWidth is 400 the font size will be 5.6 > >Yes, 5.6 fontsize would be too small to read. > >Nit - 22 rounded is 22 and 5.6 rounded is 5. > > If we are going to be nitty... 22.4 rounded is 22 and 5.6 rounded is 6. http://macscripter.net/faq/get_the_faq. ... 9_0_10_0_C > >Perhaps you should set the font size to a fixed size to avoid this > >problem or change the 0.014 in the calculation to 0.02 so that you'll > >get a font size 8 in the 400 wide pictures and a 32 font size on the > >1600 wide pictures. > >Otherwise you may want to try saving as PNG or some other non lossy > >format instead of JPG. > >JPG is not meant to display text especially tiny text. > >The picture width may be 400, but sizing to fill the page should make >it the same size as the larger one that is shrunk to fit. > > Yes same size but not same quality. You are embedding the *picture of text* not actual text. With the 400 wide image you are blowing up the image of tiny text so you see every pixel it's made of, with the 1600 wide image you are shrinking a large image of text so it hides all its imperfections , it looks nice and smooth. That's what resolution is all about. You can understand it better if you just create new blank images with GC and use the text tool to write some text and then resize the images to see what happens. Here is a sample http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c229/ ... lution.jpg The only way to have the same size *and* same quality text on blown up images is to first resize your small images to the largest image size, then apply the text label with one font size then print to fit screen. This can be done with batch actions, I don't know how to do it with applescript I posted some tests here: http://photobucket.com/albums/c229/mpascal/GC/ Your script would work fine if you printed everything small. ( 4-6 pictures to a page) The reason it looks bad is because you are blowing up small images. The way I'd have done it is to not embed text directly on images meant for printing but rather use GC's print dialog especially from "Print Catalog" which gives a huge array of options for what to print along with the images. And this will be my last post on this issue. Hope it helps, otherwise sorry for butting in. I guess one could ask Thorsten to add the option in "Print Catalog" to overlay the text over the image instead of printing below. Marino

[Robert Poland]

Thanks Marino , On your advice I now resize all pictures. Here is the meat of the script. tell application "GraphicConverter" activate set answerYear to "1/2/2003" set fname to name of window 1 set nameDate to fname & answerYear as string tell window 1 rotate to angle 90 -- picture assumed to be in landscape style set {picWidth, picHeight} to image dimension set picres to resolution set widthInches to picWidth / (text item 1 of picres) -- width in inches set scaleFactor to 7.3 / widthInches scale horizontal scaleFactor vertical scaleFactor -- set for 8.5 X 11 page view at maximum size set {picWidth, picHeight} to image dimension set fontSize to 30 -- (round (0.014 * picWidth)) -- nom 16 point set picCenter to picWidth / 2 as integer change margins with {0, 105, 0, 0} -- draw textline into text nameDate justification 2 color {0, 0, 0} point {picCenter, (0.028 * picHeight)} font "Arial" size fontSize with antialias draw textline into text nameDate justification 2 color {0, 0, 0} point {picCenter, 82} font "Arial" size fontSize with antialias end tell end tell beep return -- Bob Poland - Fort Collins, CO http://www.ibrb.org/

[Sverker Hahn]

Hi, I have just started to write IPTC info to my pictures. But to make it faster, I don´t want to write identical data to all pictures, but want it somehow automated. Country could be the same for thousands of pictures, town and county for hundreds etc. Is there an AppleScript out there to achieve this function? If the scripts could be use together with FileMaker, all the better ... Happy New Year to all of you! Sverker Hahn --------- Kudu Data www.kudu.se

[Marino Pascal]

In the GC browser you can select a folder that contains 10 pictures or 10,000. control click or select "other" from the toolbar and select "Edit IPTC info" or simply select the folder and hit Command - I. This will bring the IPTC edit window, then whatever you enter will apply to all the pictures in the folder. Also enable the Keyword window and see what that can do for you. Personally I have some reservations about applying the same info on thousands of pictures. Lets say I tavelled to Paris in 2001, 2003 and 2005 and on each visit I shot 1,000 pictures. Yes, I could easily add the IPTC info "Paris" to 3,000 pictures with the steps outlined above. But do I want to get 3,000 file name results when I search for "Paris" ? I wonder if it's better to just have *one* INFO.JPG that holds the IPTC metadata for each *group* or folder of pictures. One for each trip for the example above. Those familiar with relational databases are familiar with the concept of items linked together to groups. Unfortunately in image management we are expected to enter the same data for each item. It doesn't matter that programs like GC have made it easy. Is it useful ? Of course. Is it the best way to catalogue? Probably not. Very little thought has been given to adding metadata to folders of files instead of individual files. My solution is to add text files to folders. I've tried FilemakerPro (which I use extensively for other things), iView and Aperture and I keep coming back to the file/folder system. Marino Pascal

[thorstenlemke]

Hello, simple use the file browser in Graphiconverter. Select all file. Select edit iptc. Thorsten ( > I have just started to write IPTC info to my pictures. But to make it > faster, I don´t want to write identical data to all pictures, but > want it somehow automated. > > Country could be the same for thousands of pictures, town and county > for hundreds etc. > > Is there an AppleScript out there to achieve this function? If the > scripts could be use together with FileMaker, all the better ... > > Happy New Year to all of you! > > Sverker Hahn > >