# How are *official* schematics presented?

J

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
I have used PNG in the past when I was dumb enough to think PowerPoint
was the way to make a presentation. (PNG's insert and size easily in
PPT's).

What's yoru current tool of choice?

J

#### Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
joseph2k wrote:
PNG is much smaller for line art than either ps or pdf,
let alone typical tiff.

Joerg wrote:
[...]when I stored it in PNG
the schematic shrank from about 1MB for 84K.
I can read it but that doesn't have to mean anyone can.

The Borg has been the reason for the slow adoption of PNG.
(IrfanView , the freeware graphics app, has supported it for many
years.)

I have used PNG in the past when I was dumb enough to think PowerPoint
was the way to make a presentation. (PNG's insert and size easily in
PPT's).

However I discovered that I can make hierarchical descendible
schematics with Adobe v4, which is a MUCH nicer way to go.

Is that what you use when you have to give a live presentation?

Yep. Using laptop and projector.

Make up a PDF that contains the whole project... at least MY sections
of it.

Sit on ass, click mouse, talk ;-)

First sheet is top-level block diagram... clicking a block descends
into the contents of that block. Block may even have sub-blocks.

POP brings you back up one level, or all the way to the top, if you
like... programmer's choice.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

...Jim Thompson

J

#### Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
What's yoru current tool of choice?

I do all my reports and design reviews using Adobe v4. Later versions
of Adobe are bloatware... so much so that they put M$oft to shame ;-) MicroSim Schematics prints beautifully using (Adobe) PDFWriter, slightly smaller files than the freebies. You can also insert "pictures" into MicroSim Schematics. Word also can use PDFWriter to make compact PDF's. With Adobe v4 you can merge many different pages into a single document, and "Save As" compacts. /begin personal opinion/ OrCAD Capture is the biggest piece-a-crap on the face of the earth. /end personal opinion/ ...Jim Thompson J #### Joerg Jan 1, 1970 0 Jim said: On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:51:22 GMT, Joerg [snip] Indeed. Tried it with the project I finished yesterday. It's sent to the client already so too late this time but when I stored it in PNG the schematic shrank from about 1MB for 84K. Is PNG widespread and commonly readable? I can read it but that doesn't have to mean anyone can. WRT the original topic I now must confess that I am beginning to warm up to the idea of writing 33K2 like many Europeans do instead of 33.2K, or 33R2 instead of just 33.2. When tired at the end of the day it's easy to overlook one of those decimal points. I gave the schematic one more thorough visual and thought I'd bunged it with one resistor, until I saw that little dot and knew it was ok. Methinks you delude yourself on the file size ;-) ...Jim Thompson Just tried a simple A-size... PDF = 42KB PNG = 102KB For the _same_resolution_ the only thing that comes close in file size is TIFF, and it generally looks like crap. Methinks it could be the PDF conversion in OpenOffice that bloats it. My CAD can output a lot of formats but not PDF. At least that I know of. It really was 1MB. And the TIFF looks sharp even if zoomed to 800%. So does the PNG schematic. Thought it might be due to the schematic being mostly analog parts. But so are yours I guess so I'll have to look into the file size thing some more. J #### Joerg Jan 1, 1970 0 Jim said: joseph2k said: PNG is much smaller for line art than either ps or pdf, let alone typical tiff. [...]when I stored it in PNG the schematic shrank from about 1MB for 84K. Is PNG widespread and commonly readable? I can read it but that doesn't have to mean anyone can. The Borg has been the reason for the slow adoption of PNG. http://www.google.com/search?q=in.internet.explorer.7+png+microsoft (IrfanView , the freeware graphics app, has supported it for many years.) I have used PNG in the past when I was dumb enough to think PowerPoint was the way to make a presentation. (PNG's insert and size easily in PPT's). However I discovered that I can make hierarchical descendible schematics with Adobe v4, which is a MUCH nicer way to go. I've always found PNG's to be larger than PDF's, but maybe it's the capabilities of MicroSim Schematics that make that so. You should have seen my last one. It was about a noise problem and solutions I had devised. So I needed to show before-after images but it had to be video loops. I made the last slide to jump into a DICOM software (that's the medical imaging standard), then started one loop, then two, then three. Some folks were looking at my laptop when the fan came on full blast, to see if smoke would start pouring out of it. During the dry run here at the office I was quite surprised that this little Dell laptop could do that. J #### Joerg Jan 1, 1970 0 Jim said: I do all my reports and design reviews using Adobe v4. Later versions of Adobe are bloatware... so much so that they put M$oft to shame ;-)

MicroSim Schematics prints beautifully using (Adobe) PDFWriter,
slightly smaller files than the freebies. You can also insert
"pictures" into MicroSim Schematics.

Cadsoft does that, too. It's really nice to place scope plots in there
just like it used to be on TV schematics.

Word also can use PDFWriter to make compact PDF's.

With Adobe v4 you can merge many different pages into a single
document, and "Save As" compacts.

/begin personal opinion/
OrCAD Capture is the biggest piece-a-crap on the face of the earth.
/end personal opinion/

I was never enthused about any of the Windows editions either. However,
the old SDT 3.22 was the best schematic editor ever IMHO. It has a nice
hierarchical sheet structure that did this top layer block -> descend
very professionally. I could do the design reviews just like you do them
and this was back in 1990. Except that PowerPoint didn't exist back then
AFAIR. And they didn't have projectors, we all had to sit around a
monitor. Laptops back then didn't have space heaters that came on at
random, no fans.

J

#### Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
joseph2k said:
PNG is much smaller for line art than either ps or pdf,
let alone typical tiff.
[...]when I stored it in PNG
the schematic shrank from about 1MB for 84K.
I can read it but that doesn't have to mean anyone can.

The Borg has been the reason for the slow adoption of PNG.
(IrfanView , the freeware graphics app, has supported it for many
years.)

Was the 1MB a PDF? If so, how was it created?

Yes. With OpenOffice.

J

#### Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
joseph2k wrote:

PNG is much smaller for line art than either ps or pdf,
let alone typical tiff.

Joerg wrote:

[...]when I stored it in PNG
the schematic shrank from about 1MB for 84K.
I can read it but that doesn't have to mean anyone can.

The Borg has been the reason for the slow adoption of PNG.
(IrfanView , the freeware graphics app, has supported it for many
years.)

Was the 1MB a PDF? If so, how was it created?

Yes. With OpenOffice.

Aha! I guess OpenOffice needs to fix its OpenOrifice ;-)

...Jim Thompson

J

#### Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Cadsoft does that, too. It's really nice to place scope plots in there
just like it used to be on TV schematics.

I was never enthused about any of the Windows editions either. However,
the old SDT 3.22 was the best schematic editor ever IMHO. It has a nice
hierarchical sheet structure that did this top layer block -> descend
very professionally. I could do the design reviews just like you do them
and this was back in 1990. Except that PowerPoint didn't exist back then
AFAIR. And they didn't have projectors, we all had to sit around a
monitor. Laptops back then didn't have space heaters that came on at
random, no fans.

Yep. I abandoned OrCAD when they went from SDT 3.22 into that first
"Window" version of their own... what a piece-a-crap ;-)

...Jim Thompson

J

#### Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
Jim Thompson wrote:

joseph2k wrote:

PNG is much smaller for line art than either ps or pdf,
let alone typical tiff.

Joerg wrote:

[...]when I stored it in PNG
the schematic shrank from about 1MB for 84K.
I can read it but that doesn't have to mean anyone can.

The Borg has been the reason for the slow adoption of PNG.
(IrfanView , the freeware graphics app, has supported it for many
years.)

Was the 1MB a PDF? If so, how was it created?

Yes. With OpenOffice.

Aha! I guess OpenOffice needs to fix its OpenOrifice ;-)

Yeah, it's probably not the best PDF converter and when zooming in
things like inductors begin to look fuzzy at the edges. Where did that
good old HPGL standard go? None of the new SW seems to understand that
anymore.

J

#### Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
Jim Thompson wrote:

joseph2k wrote:

PNG is much smaller for line art than either ps or pdf,
let alone typical tiff.

Joerg wrote:

[...]when I stored it in PNG
the schematic shrank from about 1MB for 84K.
I can read it but that doesn't have to mean anyone can.

The Borg has been the reason for the slow adoption of PNG.
(IrfanView , the freeware graphics app, has supported it for many
years.)

Was the 1MB a PDF? If so, how was it created?

Yes. With OpenOffice.

Aha! I guess OpenOffice needs to fix its OpenOrifice ;-)

Yeah, it's probably not the best PDF converter and when zooming in
things like inductors begin to look fuzzy at the edges. Where did that
good old HPGL standard go? None of the new SW seems to understand that
anymore.

My Adobe v4 can zoom to 1600%. My schematics still look like sharp
(but wide) lines. (I never go higher than 150dpi... the wires get too
thin ;-)

...Jim Thompson

J

#### Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:15:36 GMT, Joerg

Jim Thompson wrote:

joseph2k wrote:

PNG is much smaller for line art than either ps or pdf,
let alone typical tiff.

Joerg wrote:

[...]when I stored it in PNG
the schematic shrank from about 1MB for 84K.
I can read it but that doesn't have to mean anyone can.

The Borg has been the reason for the slow adoption of PNG.
(IrfanView , the freeware graphics app, has supported it for many
years.)

Was the 1MB a PDF? If so, how was it created?

Yes. With OpenOffice.

Aha! I guess OpenOffice needs to fix its OpenOrifice ;-)

Yeah, it's probably not the best PDF converter and when zooming in
things like inductors begin to look fuzzy at the edges. Where did that
good old HPGL standard go? None of the new SW seems to understand that
anymore.

My Adobe v4 can zoom to 1600%. My schematics still look like sharp
(but wide) lines. (I never go higher than 150dpi... the wires get too
thin ;-)

It changes the line widths? Hmm. With Eagle that never changes no matter
what the resolution is set to. I usually print 300dpi. Sometimes 600 or
1200, mostly when there are chips with small embedded graphics in there,
to show internal functions.

J

#### Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]
My Adobe v4 can zoom to 1600%. My schematics still look like sharp
(but wide) lines. (I never go higher than 150dpi... the wires get too
thin ;-)

It changes the line widths? Hmm.

Of course: 150dpi means a "wire" is 6.67mil

Likewise 300dpi gives 3.33mil

Plus MicroSim Schematics has the ability to size the line widths for
each type of drawing element.
With Eagle that never changes no matter
what the resolution is set to. I usually print 300dpi. Sometimes 600 or
1200, mostly when there are chips with small embedded graphics in there,
to show internal functions.

...Jim Thompson

J

#### Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]
My Adobe v4 can zoom to 1600%. My schematics still look like sharp
(but wide) lines. (I never go higher than 150dpi... the wires get too
thin ;-)

It changes the line widths? Hmm.

Of course: 150dpi means a "wire" is 6.67mil

Likewise 300dpi gives 3.33mil

Eagle does that automatically

Plus MicroSim Schematics has the ability to size the line widths for
each type of drawing element.

Yep, same here. You could even use it to create all kinds of
non-electrical artwork. Haven't done that yet but some day maybe I'll
re-design our customized Yahtzee score sheets.

[...]

J

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
Of course: 150dpi means a "wire" is 6.67mil

[Cough] Some tools let you enter a physical width for your wires, you know.

Granted, since Microsim started... what?... more than 20 years ago, it can be
forgiven if it doesn't have that feature.

Did you ever play enough with ORCAD capture to notice that lines of a given
width in the symbol editor are rendered as a significantly different (like,
2x!) width on schematics? What a piece of junk...

J

#### Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
Of course: 150dpi means a "wire" is 6.67mil

[Cough] Some tools let you enter a physical width for your wires, you know.

MicroSim Schematics lets you do that. I just happen to like my wires
6.67mil ;-)
Granted, since Microsim started... what?... more than 20 years ago, it can be
forgiven if it doesn't have that feature.

Did you ever play enough with ORCAD capture to notice that lines of a given
width in the symbol editor are rendered as a significantly different (like,
2x!) width on schematics? What a piece of junk...

I kissed off OrCAD this last "maintenance" round. Since I'm a "saver"
I reviewed five years of e-mail bitches to PSpice "support"... people
who shall remain nameless who promised fixes, assigned PCR's to keep
me thinking something was happening... NOTHING was fixed. And these
last few rounds they've made every effort to emasculate PSpice
(MicroSim) Schematics... though they're not very good at even
accomplishing that ;-)

...Jim Thompson

J

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
I kissed off OrCAD this last "maintenance" round. Since I'm a "saver"
I reviewed five years of e-mail bitches to PSpice "support"... people
who shall remain nameless who promised fixes, assigned PCR's to keep
me thinking something was happening... NOTHING was fixed.

I'm always amazed at how many "easy to fix" bugs remain in products year after
year... just stupid stuff, like the ORCAD capture line width rendering bug I
mentioned. It's not like the GUI portion of the tool is rocket science...

J

#### Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joel said:
I'm always amazed at how many "easy to fix" bugs remain in products year after
year... just stupid stuff, like the ORCAD capture line width rendering bug I
mentioned. It's not like the GUI portion of the tool is rocket science...

This is one of the reasons I switched to Cadsoft. They run several
newsgroups (real ones, accessible via this here newsreader...).
Employees of that company actually come online for help, take
suggestions and they even run separate suggestion NGs in at least two
languages. And they do listen. Best of all, after we all sent in our
electronic "Dear Santa" letters quite a few of the suggestions have
the next release. Such as my pet peeve, lack of additional part fields
that I am missing so much from my OrCad days. They announced that it's a
good idea and that they'll do that. Now that's customer service. Ok,
sometimes wishes are declined, such as mine for hierarchical sheet
structures. A rather serious shortcoming IMHO but they are of different
opinion. Oh well, nothing is perfect.

Also, this SW is quite open. There is fully documented user language
programming and scripting. So if you need something unorthodox to happen
you can write a kolstad.ulp routine and it'll do that. Many times all it
takes is a look at their download area. Chance are someone else needed
the same thing and has shared a ULP routine.

P

#### przemek klosowski

Jan 1, 1970
0
Just tried a simple A-size...

PDF = 42KB

PNG = 102KB
Remember that PDF is basically a compressed subset of Postscript,
i.e. it is capable of vector graphics, whereas PNG is a raster
format. Drawings will always be smaller (and better looking) in
vector form, because raster compression can't deal with sharp
line-type patterns.

R

#### Robert Latest

Jan 1, 1970
0
That is just a quirk of the Eagle export module.
Indeed. Tried it with the project I finished yesterday. It's sent to the
client already so too late this time but when I stored it in PNG the
schematic shrank from about 1MB for 84K. Is PNG widespread and commonly

Of course. It's been standard for some 15 years now and has pretty much
replaced GIF.

robert

J
Replies
33
Views
2K
Fred Bloggs
F
Replies
1
Views
770
Replies
4
Views
1K
P
Replies
2
Views
3K
P
P
Replies
1
Views
1K
Sylvia Else
S