Hello Henry
On 03/11/2008, you wrote:
> Bart:
>
>> I have learned to keep in mind that it also matters to one's printer.
>>
>> Lesson learned when I dragged 12 large photos (jpg) down enough in
>> size so that I could get them all on one Letter-size sheet.
>
> This one I've heard about before. I'm curious to know more about it.
>
> What's the equipment involved? The only PostScript printer I have is an
> old HP B&W inkjet(!) that sits in a closet. I used it up to around 2000
> and, in those days it was mostly with my Amiga and mostly many fewer
> images. My experience "ripping" (if that's the right word) PDFs tells
> me that dragging an image to a smaller size reduces the usable
> resolution when you print, but that the full-size image is still in the
> PDF and, presumably, it would be part of a PostScript file as well. So,
> it's understandable that the PostScript file would grow in size even
>; with typical JPEGs or other compression schemes.
I print with an HP Color Laserjet 2605dn. Saw them advertised for $300 the
other day. I suppose it was worth an extra $200 not to have to wait for a
little over a year to print anything.
As I recall, I ran out of memory two ways. One, as Tim Doty guessed,
printer memory. I printed a PS document to a "file" called "prt:" and it
went directly to printer memory. I intend to increase my printer's memory
one of these days; whether that will solve this problem or not remains to
be seen. If I were a printer, I'd start printing when I got the top of the
page, instead of waiting for the whole thing, but I'm not. (For all I
know, the whole page comes in layers of colors.)
I often print first to ram:, then copy the file to prt: But OS4 decided I
had filled up enough of the free 441mb of memory available, and quit
converting the file to ram:.
> [Omited query already answered above]
> As far as printing 12 or more images on a page, I've only down that
>; with photo catalogs, and then only once or twice. Cataloging programs
> normally will take care of the whole job, providing suitable captions
> and employing thumbnails for the pictures. But since you're going to
> PostScript from PageStream, you're obviously not doing that. Are the
> images originating from full-resolution files? If so, that seems a
> waste of bandwidth. But creating separate versions for the documents is
> likewise a waste of your human bandwidth if it can avoided.
Printing 12 to a page wasn't my original purpose. I took the pictures in
order to count stream crossings on a couple of hikes. It was necessary to
take pictures, because in my dotage I tend to get confused counting,
somewhere between 2 and about 3, if anything happens in between. (I
suppose I could have put a pebble in my pocket at each crossing, and
counted the pebbles later, but in my dotage I don't always think of second
ways to do things in time.)
By coindence, the first stream had 12 crossings. I say this is a
coincidence, because 12=3x4, and I realized that I could print all 12
crossing pictures on a single page, four rows of three reduced photos each.
This worked very well with the first stream, because I had happened to take
them at 640x480x24. But when I did the second stream, coincidentally with
12 crossings again(!), I had resolution set to 2048x1536x24, about nine
times as big. Then, without realiizing the difference, I tried to print
them via PgS the same way as the first batch.
Now I have my choice of using Thumb with larger-than-default thumbnails, or
shrinking the jpegs down. I think I have more than one way to do that, but
I usually just "minus" them in PicShow and recopy with SGrab_OS4. The job
has been de-prioritized, obviously below the priority of writing
excessively long posts to user groups.
Bart
.
Love it. I know the problem. But, you're doing better than me. I