How does Word/Quicktime render images?

[Flynnstone]

I'm trying to get Word 2004 to make good printed output of pictures.

This all started when I was trying to Word documents created on a Mac with Word 2004 to print/display properly on a Windows Server 2003 running Word 2003. I got the needs Quicktime messages.
After much head scratching ... I think I have a solution.

For pdf files, import into a graphics program, I'm using GraphicsConverter and have it render to 600 dpi. Then save as a png file. I tried Preview and tried to save as a png file with 600 dpi, but I always got the same number of pixels as 300dpi.
I assume Preview uses Quicktime to render, but how it determines the output actual number of pixels, I don't know. Any ideas?

Also I tried some gif files. If I convert the low res gif into a png via preview and insert both pictures into a Word document, the png version prints better. I assume QuickTime is rendering for Word for the gif.

Basically I want high quality print output on Mac and Windows.

 

[bit density]

This is a problem that has been going on since there were macs and pcs...

There is no good or easy answer. You will always find that something somewhere will break.

Professional organizations spend a lot of money just to solve this.

The easiest, simplest, and cheapest answer is to stop mixing platforms. There are just too many significant differences between rendering on three different platforms (two os's and one printer), that you will get this to work well just in software "intelligence". Realize that 97%+ Of all users print to a printer from the machine that they made something on. It will work pretty ok. It is as soon as you stop doing this it gets harder.

Second way of doing it better... use distribution formats rather than editting formats. Such as high end PDF. This is NOT the same as save to PDF, which is mostly just for online use. Invest in good PDF creation tools or understand the format better. Stop using word as a distribution format. It simply will run into bunches of problems rendering differently than on the station it was created at. Converting it into a distribution format suitable for printing will help.

Third way... Stop using PICT and WMF, JPEG, PNG, GIF and other either OS specific or online specific image types. Settle on only two TIFF, and EPS. Which also means focusing on one output type, PostScript or PDF.

Then you start going up the channel, using layout and component management tools. You can make it "easy" again it just requires expertise, money and content creation rules to do so.

 

[Flynnstone]

Such as high end PDF.

What is "high end PDF"? Generated with Adobe Distiller, not "Save as PDF"?

Stop using word as a distribution format.

Totally agree on this.

Third way... Stop using PICT and WMF, JPEG, PNG, GIF and other either OS specific or online specific image types. Settle on only two TIFF, and EPS. Which also means focusing on one output type, PostScript or PDF.

Ned to think more on this.

 

[MisterMe]

...

Second way of doing it better... use distribution formats rather than editting formats. Such as high end PDF. This is NOT the same as save to PDF, which is mostly just for online use. Invest in good PDF creation tools or understand the format better. Stop using word as a distribution format. ...

By and large, I agree. MacOS X's built-in PDF printing does an excellent job. A freeware CUPS-PDF print driver is available online. However, I use Adobe Acrobat Professional 8 and the Distiller print driver.

Third way... Stop using ... JPEG, PNG, GIF and other either OS specific or online specific image types. Settle on only two TIFF, and EPS. Which also means focusing on one output type, PostScript or PDF.

...

There are a few mistakes here:

1. There is nothing proprietary about JPEG, PNG, or GIF. Neither I nor anyone I know has ever had any trouble embedding JPEG files in Word documents on either Windows or the Mac. One does, however, have to be careful how embedded images are manipulated. If you do the wrong thing, then they may not print at the proper resolution.
2. My personal experience with TIFF is that Word:win cannot handle it unless QuickTime is installed. Otherwise, the application refuses to accept it claiming it to be an Apple format.
3. EPSF has become the red-headed stepchild of graphics formats. Up through MacOS 9, Apple's PostScript print driver supported printing to this format. MacOS X's PostScript print driver prints to PDF and PostScript, but not EPSF. For the most part, EPSF graphic elements still work fine. It is just more difficult to create them.

With these nits picked, I largely agree with your advice. It is too bad that more people don't take it.

 

[Flynnstone]

One does, however, have to be careful how embedded images are manipulated. If you do the wrong thing, then they may not print at the proper resolution.

I might have been treading here or will.
What to look out for?