Xref: utzoo comp.text:2665 comp.graphics:3442
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!netsys!vector!gryphon!richard
From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.graphics
Subject: Re: postscript routines for plotting
Message-ID: <7999@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Date: 22 Oct 88 04:28:03 GMT
References: <31190@bbn.COM> <4357@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
Followup-To: comp.graphics
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 66

In article <4357@ubc-cs.UUCP> majka@grads.cs.ubc.ca (Marc Majka) writes:
>In article <31190@bbn.COM> jzavgren@bbn.com (John Zavgren) writes:
>>I beleive [sic] the way to go is PostScript. After all, all our printing is
>>done on PostScript printers. So, we might as well eliminate as many
>>intermediate steps as possible. [...]
>
>PostScript is an adequate page description language.

iNo, HP's PCL is adequate. PS is excellent.

>It is a poor graphical description language. 

Oh ? You have a graphic that cannot be described by PS ?

>Sure, all your printers understand PostScript, but printers are
> hardly the only kind of graphic output devices. 

Ok, what else do we have: plotters, CRT's, film recorders, phototypesetters.

Plotters - good for 8 colour var charts - low quality.

Crt's - usefull for preview and little else. You can videotape
form an NTSC signal, but thats not of great quality.

However, high quality, professional output is obtained almost
exclusivly from:

Phototypesetters - Now were talking. If you are going to produce
something of high print quality, this is how you are going to
do it, either monochrome or colour through colout seps. No, you
can't take a TIFF or GIF or GKS or PHIGS file to a printer.

Film-recorders - You wanna make a movie ? This will be your output
device. Input ? Really dumb. Usually a bitmap, or an analog
voltage into the device. Yucch. Having a PS compatible film
recorder would be a boon. I seem to recall one being discusses
somewhere, but can't rememebr when.

>Producing good graphics in PostScript is, frankly, a pain in the butt.

This is true. Sitting down with a PS printer hooked up to a terminal
is a pain. Most of us use programs to generate the PS.

> As the fledgling
>"industry" of desktop publishing grows up, it will begin to discover that
>there are more exciting graphical concepts than those offered by PostScript.

Ok. Like what ?

>Expect either a new page description language to replace PostScript, or big
>changes in the graphics it offers.  Writing PostScript-based graphics
>utilities will get you two things: soon-outdated software, and lousy graphics.

Sheer, utter, and unadulterated bullshit. The software will not be outdated.
When you and I are dead, there will be machines capable of rendering PS
files.

And as for lousy graphics, PS will not prevent you from drawing a
bad graphic. Only a good sense of design and a smattering of talent will.

But DO tell us. What is the alternative ?

Or are you just a frustrated LaserJet I owner ?

-- 
                           Point of light #999
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM    {backbone...err, well connected site}!gryphon!richard