| From: | Wordman <wordman@*****.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Siberia maps |
| Date: | Wed, 9 Jul 1997 11:32:39 -0400 |
>> How about EPS? I know Word can handle it, it will be smaller, and the
>> resoultion won't totally suck the way a gif or jpeg would.
> David wrote
> What's the difference in resolution? I think a jpeg is fine. On
> the other hand I have no idea what EPS is <shrug>.
Jpeg is ok for screen display, but unless you make a high dpi version
(which is very large), it will not print well at all. This is especially
important for maps, because they typically contain a lot of very small
details. These details are not visible on the screen (unless you can
zoom the image), but print well, as long as the image is of high enough
resolution.
EPS stands for Encapsulated PostScript. It is a vector-based graphics
format, which means that its resoution is pretty much whatever you want
it to be. It stores the image a mathmatical paths of the outlines. This
is great for maps and the like (which are made using vector-based
software), but not so good for photographs (which don't contain any
outline information, just straight pixels). EPS is a psuedo-cross
platform format. I say "psuedo-cross platform" because, like the TIFF
format, tons of software and platforms support it, but there are a
number of flavors of the format itself, so you can sometimes run into a
situation where two products support the format, but they still can't
read each others files in that format.
Gurth, I'll make sure whatever I use can be opened in Word 97.
Wordman
