Paul, Often it is just a matter of convenience. Take the circuit that you converted into a GIF. I originally saw a post asking about how to go about designing a constant current source for charging 15 capacitors to drive 15 solenoids. I have a five minute break between class periods. (I am an educator, teach electronics and computer technology). In between two class periods I clicked on AutoCad, drew the schematic, added in the text explaining how to calculate various parts values, printed it as a PDF to my TEMP directory, closed Autocad, opened my Mail program, created a new e-mail, typed a short paragraph, attached the PDF file, sent out the e-mail and closed the Mail program all in time to be able to greet my next class as they came in the door. Converting to a GIF would have added several extra steps and then I would have had to put off sending the e-mail for at least another class period. I have several choices: 1) Don't answer the post for help at all. 2) Answer the post just with a couple of paragaraphs and hope the person understands the text. 3) Attempt to use dumb ascii art to give some visual idea of the circuit. Sometimes OK for really simple stuff, but too messy for most schematics. 4) Use the tools I have that I know well and can work very fast with. (This is what I usually choose) 5) Try to please everyone by providing the data in a half dozen different formats: PDF/GIF/JPG/ etc. I do this when I have the time, or when a person asking for help specifically requests a particular format such as AutoCad DWG. In that case the reply is sent JUST to the individual requesting it, and is not posted to the entire PIC list. For every one of my posts to the PIC list there are a half-dozen private replies that I send out just to the person who has requested help. I often tell them that if they have found it useful they may post my reply to the PIC list in the hope that it may help someone else, too. 6) Prepare a very professional presentation that takes many hours to prepare and which consumes a few megabytes of disk storage, and then post it on my website. (I do this for complete projects, such as my PIC based Autoranging Capacitance Meter) When I have the time to convert to GIF, and *if* the GIF is smaller in file size, then I will try to send the GIF to the PIC list. But forgive me if I continue to use PDF files to illustrate schematic details from time to time. Fr. Tom McGahee -----Original Message----- From: Paul B. Webster VK2BZC To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Date: Thursday, April 06, 2000 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [OT] PDF versus GIF >Thomas McGahee wrote: > >> The PDF file at 600 dpi was 18k in size. >> The PDF file at 150 dpi was 17k in size. >> There are free readers available for all platforms. >> The GIF file came to 181k. I was able to reduce it to 57k monochrome. > > Tom, I can't help feeling you're doing something *WRONG* here. The >attached .GIF doesn't have all the detail of what you sent, but looks >pretty clean. I can only suspect that the right software applied to >your original and thus avoiding interpolation, would produce a more >concise or at least equal .GIF version. I am glad we haven't >degenerated to the point of mentioning .JPGs though! > >> I also prefer the PDF files because the PDF writer is accessible the >> same as a printer, and so I can produce PDF files from ANY of my >> applications. > > That's nice, but it's a proprietary software, unlike the reader. >(This discussion has been covered on the list before.) > >> I find the quality of the PDF files superior. I normally produce 600 >>? dpi PDF files, as they reproduce excellently on laser printers, and >> the increase in file size is very small. > > I do agree that Acrobat prints correctly, unlike any .GIF viewer I >have used so far. Well, unlike Netscape at least. > >> I might be able to get something readable from an 18k GIF, but that >> same 18k of file space in PDF format gives me a MUCH better result >> when printed out on paper. > > How does the enclosure look? I'll have to try it at work, but I even >suspect Netscape might print it correctly! > >> In general I have found the PDF files to be smaller than the >> comparable quality GIF files, > > See my initial comment, and below. > >> plus I can incorporate word processor elements, and in that case >> people can extract the text if they desire. > > True, but not for the example given. If the file was an Acrobat >construct to begin, then I'd immediately agree that is the superior >representation and *always* prints perfectly. I just can't quite >believe that a bitmap import will be compressed significantly better by >the Acrobat format than the .GIF format. Thus my comment that if you're >going to post a file from another format, make it directly web-readable. > > My real gripe is probably that the plug-in as applied to Netscape, is >so badly behaved, for which reason I managed to remove the beggar at >some length... > >> I was initially suprised to find that if I include a GIF file into a >> PDF document, the resulting PDF document is often actually smaller! > > I can't help thinking you used a *bad* .GIF file. If they use a >better compression algorithm than .GIF, then why isn't it in general >use? > >Roland Andrag wrote: > >> can you tell me how you got a gif out of Autocad? I am using Acad >> 2000 and would love a way of get drawings to a bitmap format at 600 >> dpi (300 dpi)... > > Sorry, can't give you a generic, guaranteed method, but this *was* >covered the previous time round on the list and a capture software >recommended. Because this particular file fits on my display, I used >PrintScreen to capture it, Paint to crop it and Adobe (must be smart >guys, these) PhotoDeluxe to convert to .GIF. >-- > Cheers, > Paul B.