|
2006-12-01 17:12
|
pasery_i_linie_ciecia.jpg (236,540 bytes) |
|
|
yep a en or de description would be very helpful |
|
2006-12-02 00:09
|
Dokument-4-strona1.png (100,831 bytes) |
|
|
fschmid: just uploaded an En version of the picture |
|
|
I am sorry, but I don't understand what the request is, here. Isn't the en uploaded file the same as in bug 0004683 ? |
|
|
Louis: this request is about the ability to define different _colorbar types_. The other request is about the ability to define _printer marks size_. And yes, the uploaded file is the same, because it has been sent to me with in one email, and because it refers to both requests. |
|
|
While I fully understand the need for defining _printer marks size_ I am not sure we need to let user specify different colorbar types. At some point, having an option to define everything becomes a bit too much, imo. Let me explain. We need the name of color on each plate. This is to avoid mistakes on press (or while making analog proofs) — no use in digital printing. I wouldn't make that an option. In my view, I think it's better to concentrate on having a generic color bar that does the job instead of putting options user can select and miss something important. To calibrate their press, printers will put the marks they need at plate creation anyway. No matter how the stripping is done, manually or electronically, these page color bars will most of the time disappear in the process (actually, they most certainly will unless this is a one-page document printed alone... and even then the printer will prefer to put its own colorbar with all the options that permits to control ink density and uniformity, blanket pressure, dot gain, image distortion, etc.). They are useful to help not mix the plates. This is more related to imposition than page layout. At page layout level, we need to be able to proof the job and make sure all the color we used are actually part of the separation process. Thus, yes, the need to put color names, including spot colors. I would not suggest to make that editable, at that level. In the example shown we are missing the filename, the date and time of the output. We have a bug on the tracker that discusses the need for a more detailed information "box". This would include other details, such as the docket number, the name of the operator or creator, and other infos useful for the workflow. Sorry to make this answer so verbose! I hope this helps. |
|
|
<quoting> Sorry to make this answer so verbose! I hope this helps. </quoting> That's everything I've hoped for. I can't judge the request myself, so I wanted you two pros to express your opinions whether it's justified at all and how to implement it. Your explanations help a lot. Louis, I think, this is the beginning of a beautiful ...discussion. |
- Anonymous
