Hi Chris:
Yes, we know "why" (sort of...)
Yes, it is possible in 2008 (although 2008 should be a lot better...) They
swear it's fixed in 2008, but that's what they said last time
Most of the problems occur going from PC to Mac or back. If one or the
other has to "convert" the image to its native format, it will often choose
to convert to a bitmap which has much lower resolution than the native
vector.
A vector graphic is composed of two "layers", the vector information and the
"placeable header", usually a low-resolution bitmap.
Word uses the placeable header for on-screen display purposes.
The older the version of Word, the more likely it is to store the vector
information a byte or so offset, so Word can't find it when it comes time to
print the result. It then prints the low res bitmap instead.
The other issue, which affects bitmaps, is that the user may attempt to
"resize" the graphic by dragging. In older versions of Word, this was
likely to get the "printable pixels" an uneven multiple of the printer
resolution, causing pixelation of the image.
And there was a version of Word ‹ don't quote me, I think it was 2001 ‹
where embedded images were intentionally downsized to reduce file bloat.
There are no "good" cures. But "External Graphics" and "High-Res Bitmaps"
are the two most often used.
When you insert a picture in Word using Insert>Picture>From File... You are
offered the choice of "Linking" the image or "Embedding" it. If you choose
"Linking", you are asked whether you also want to Embed. Say "No". Not
only will your Word files reduce dramatically in size, but the print
resolution will ALWAYS be good, because the only thing Word CAN print is the
original image!
There are two downsides to this. The first is that the image native size
must be adjusted to the print size, because Word will not do a good job if
it has to attempt to resample the image on the fly.
The other is that you have to remember to move the picture files whenever
you move the document! This is an utter disaster in a non-professional
workgroup. They just won't do it, and you'll get documents scattered all
over the company with red X's where the pictures used to be.
One trick is to ensure that the image files are saved into the same folder
as the document file (and not to a subfolder within it). If they are in the
same folder, on the same level as the document, you can move the document
and its images with impunity: Word will re-attach the images each time it
opens the document no mater where on the network it is.
High-Res bitmaps have promise
Normally I would use PNG instead of TIFF,
because a PNG is one twentieth the size. I would avoid JPEG if resolution
was important. JPEG sacrifices detail to preserve colour, PNG sacrifices
colour to preserve detail. PNG has a 16-bit colour table, so it's far
better than GIF, but colour shifts are possible at the margin.
But if you insist on embedding 1440-dpi colour TIFFs in a Word document...
Well, let's just say that things will slow down a bit if you put more than
one or two in there
Hope this helps
Thanks John,
You are the first person in any of the mac forums to know the answer
to this. Do you know why the issue arrises it is due to 2004 or 2001
and if there is any way to avoid it? i.e. always import graphics as
tiff? Also do you know if it could occur between 2001 and 2008. Sorry
to ask so many questions at once but it is quite an important point
for me and my colleagues and no one until know has seemed to have any
answers.
Many thanks.
Chris
--
Don't wait for your answer, click here:
http://www.word.mvps.org/
Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.
John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Sydney, Australia. S33°53'34.20 E151°14'54.50
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:
[email protected]