Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!ames!sparkyfs!zwicky
From: zwicky@sparkyfs.istc.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Bitmap of PostScript code..
Message-ID: <30006@sparkyfs.istc.sri.com>
Date: 17 Feb 90 00:22:14 GMT
References: <1990Feb14.041704.14844@athena.mit.edu> <2761@bacchus.dec.com>
Reply-To: zwicky@pterodactyl.itstd.sri.com.UUCP (Elizabeth Zwicky)
Distribution: na
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Lines: 25

In article <2761@bacchus.dec.com> kent@wsl.dec.com (Christopher A. Kent) writes:
>How do you get a bitmap of a PostScript file? You can't. 

Note that this is the theoretically correct answer, *regardless* of
any policy on the part of Adobe. Given a PostScript program, there is
no guarantee that there exists one single equivalent bitmap. Profit
motive has nothing to do with it. Now, it is true that there are a lot
of PostScript programs that have results that can be represented as
static bitmaps, and there are ways to get those bitmaps, which differ
according to what sort of machine and window system you are running.

As an example of a PostScript program that does not translate to a
bitmap, but does produce visible output, there is the "snowflake"
program I wrote for the LaserWriter, which uses the random number
generator to generate a unique snowflake every time it is printed.
Given that a bitmap looks the same every time it is printed,
translating this into a bitmap is not useful.

As an example of a way to translate a PostScript program into a
bitmap, without in any way involving a printer engine, run NeWS,
preview the image, and do a screendump. 

Can we stop discussing the evils of Adobe now?

	Elizabeth