I have a chart in a MS Word document that uses small 10x10 icons as data
point markers.  Then are simple box shapes, with diagonal lines, above the
line black, and below the line white.  In the Word document the icons look
good at a particular zoom setting (100%).  The Word document is converted to
PDF.  The icons look bad in the PDF document at zoom settings that make the
document readable (150% - 200%).

If I scale up to 800%, the icons look as they should - no distortion and no
unusual aliasing along the diagonal.  The pixels in the 10x10 area are
exactly as they should be.  Of course, at 800%, the document text is
unreadable.  Any scaling setting less than 800% causes distortion and
unusual aliasing along the diagonal.  This leads me to believe that the PDF
has all of the "graphical information" of the icons.  It just does a poor
job of displaying them at zoom settings that are "reasonable".

Also, when I print the document, the icons look perfect.  This also leads me
to believe that the PDF has all of the "graphical information" of the icons.
It just does a poor job of displaying them at zoom settings that are
"reasonable".

I would like the icons to appear correctly at a "reasonable" zoom scale (by
reasonable, I mean a zoom setting where the document text is not too large).
Any ideas?  Thanks.

hmmm... wrote:

> I have a chart in a MS Word document that uses small 10x10 icons as data
> point markers.  Then are simple box shapes, with diagonal lines, above the
> line black, and below the line white.  In the Word document the icons look
> good at a particular zoom setting (100%).  The Word document is converted to
> PDF.  The icons look bad in the PDF document at zoom settings that make the
> document readable (150% - 200%).
> 
> If I scale up to 800%, the icons look as they should - no distortion and no
> unusual aliasing along the diagonal.  The pixels in the 10x10 area are
> exactly as they should be.  Of course, at 800%, the document text is
> unreadable.  Any scaling setting less than 800% causes distortion and
> unusual aliasing along the diagonal.  This leads me to believe that the PDF
> has all of the "graphical information" of the icons.  It just does a poor
> job of displaying them at zoom settings that are "reasonable".
> 
> Also, when I print the document, the icons look perfect.  This also leads me
> to believe that the PDF has all of the "graphical information" of the icons.
> It just does a poor job of displaying them at zoom settings that are
> "reasonable".
> 
> I would like the icons to appear correctly at a "reasonable" zoom scale (by
> reasonable, I mean a zoom setting where the document text is not too large).
> Any ideas?  Thanks.
> 
> 

Either use a character from a font (you should be able to find exactly 
what you want in a semaphore dingbat font, for example), or convert your 
icon graphic to a character in a custom font that you create, or convert 
it to a raster image. What is happening is that your EPS graphic is 
being interpreted according to the EPS spec, as designed. Annoying as 
hell, I know, but that's the way it's supposed to work.

Thanks for the reply.

I left out one part.  The chart actually originates in MS Excel.  The data
point markers are custom .gif files.  So the icons start as .gif files.
Then Word copies the chart from Excel into a Word document.  Then the Word
document is converted to PDF.

I don't think your suggestion about using/creating a font will work in this
situation (please correct me if I am wrong about that). While Excel supports
changing a chart data point marker to an image file, it does not support
changing a chart data point marker to a character (at least I know of no way
to do it).

What is EPS?  Does it have something to do with PostScript?  When I paste
the chart from Excel to Word, is the graphic EPS in Word?  When I convert
Word to PDF, is the graphic EPS at that point?

Can you elaborate a little on you suggestion to use a raster image.  Do you
mean bitmap?  Would that work in the scenario I have described: Excel chart
(with custom icons), copied to Word document, converted to PDF?

Thanks again.


"Dick Margulis" <margulis@fiam.net> wrote in message
news:vm34rqoil89d84@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Either use a character from a font (you should be able to find exactly
> what you want in a semaphore dingbat font, for example), or convert your
> icon graphic to a character in a custom font that you create, or convert
> it to a raster image. What is happening is that your EPS graphic is
> being interpreted according to the EPS spec, as designed. Annoying as
> hell, I know, but that's the way it's supposed to work.
>

I looked atthe PDF file in a text editor.  The first comment line is:
%PDF-1.3.  You mention that I am using an EPS graphic.  If EPS was being
used wouldn't the PDF file say something like %!PS-Adobe EPSF-3.0 in the
first comment line?  Thanks.

"Dick Margulis" <margulis@fiam.net> wrote in message
news:vm34rqoil89d84@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Either use a character from a font (you should be able to find exactly
> what you want in a semaphore dingbat font, for example), or convert your
> icon graphic to a character in a custom font that you create, or convert
> it to a raster image. What is happening is that your EPS graphic is
> being interpreted according to the EPS spec, as designed. Annoying as
> hell, I know, but that's the way it's supposed to work.
>

hmmm... wrote:
> I looked atthe PDF file in a text editor.  The first comment line is:
> %PDF-1.3.  You mention that I am using an EPS graphic.  If EPS was being
> used wouldn't the PDF file say something like %!PS-Adobe EPSF-3.0 in the
> first comment line?  Thanks.
> 
>

No, it would not. However, your previous post indicated that the graphic 
started out its life as a GIF, so my presumption about it being an EPS 
wouldn't apply.

"hmmm..." <blahblah@blah.com> wrote in 
news:fVH8b.1618$UN4.876@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> I looked atthe PDF file in a text editor.  The first comment line is:
> %PDF-1.3.  You mention that I am using an EPS graphic.  If EPS was being
> used wouldn't the PDF file say something like %!PS-Adobe EPSF-3.0 in the
> first comment line?  Thanks.

You seem to be confusing the file formats. In PDF, everything is PDF. There 
is no concept of EPS inside a PDF. There are no other file formats anymore 
- the application that creates the PDF converts everything into PDF format, 
leaving (in general case) no trace of other formats.

If the first command line would imply an EPS file, the file would be an EPS 
file, not a PDF file.

-- 
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>