Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!uokmax!d.cs.okstate.edu!minich
From: minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: PICT format (was BAD NEWS FOR MAC -> NEXT PEOPLE)
Message-ID: <1990Dec3.041813.17453@d.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 3 Dec 90 04:18:13 GMT
References: <1990Dec1.235150.19722@santra.uucp>
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Lines: 42

jmunkki@hila.hut.fi (Juri Munkki):
[about where PICT is documented]
	...
| The best way to get Macintosh graphics to a NeXT would seem to be
| PostScript. After all, Apple supplies a QuickDraw to PostScript
| converter in its laserwriter printer drivers. Of course it needs
| a largish library file, since it doesn't produce native PostScript,
| but at least it is possible (with some editing, I think) to move
| QuickDraw files to the NeXT as PostScript.

  The _BEST_ way to get a Mac picture to another machine is to use a
common format, NOT PICT. Apple has said that PICT is not an interchange
format for use by other machines. The main advantage of PICT is that any
Mac program can "read" one because there are toolbox calls to do so. If
the PICT format is extended (eg, for 32bit color), then old programs can
still work with the new format.
  A good programming exercise is to write a filter that uses the
QuikDraw bottlenecks to capture the actions of a PICT regardless of its
format. You stuff your routines' addresses into a jump table with
entries for various drawing primitives such as lines, rectangles, etc.
  I don't know of ANY format that is truly useful as a structured,
transferable format unless it is the native format for both ends of the
transfer. This interchange problem also is prevalent in word processor
file formats. You'll usually find that you lose some information even
though the output could be identical.
  IMO, PostScript is far from the best format for interchanging data.
Attempting to capture Mac output via PS would be at best humorous and at
worse a dismal experience. PS's problem is that it's a programming
language, NOT an image description format.
 
| Don't take wrong...PICTs are great...if you have a Macintosh.

  Well, they're highly useful but I don't know if I'd call them _great_. :-)
One big problem is the resolution... 72dpi is fine for screen work but
you'd be amazed at the problems that arise when printing at high
resolution. Two points that are coincident on the screen are suddenly
separated on paper.
-- 
|_    /| | Robert Minich            |
|\'o.O'  | Oklahoma State University| "Get bent."
|=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu  |               -- Bart Simpson
|   U    | - Ackphtth               |