Re: Re: Mathematica7 doesn't copy/paste metafile in vector format

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg104281] Re: [mg104212] Re: Mathematica7 doesn't copy/paste metafile in vector format*From*: John Fultz <jfultz at wolfram.com>*Date*: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:11:49 -0400 (EDT)*Reply-to*: jfultz at wolfram.com

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:37:26 -0400 (EDT), Lawrence Teo wrote: > Hi John, > > Thanks for the suggestion. > While it is possible to export to bitmap with high enough resolution, > is there any other way for us to specify how we would want Mathematica > 7 handle Metafile in vector or raster? After all, that is the main > reason we have the two options of Copy As > Metafile and Copy As > > Bitmap at the same time, I thought? Yes, but the point is that, unless the metafile is a bitmap in these case,= it will not look at all like what you see onscreen. Surely something which fundamentally changes the appearance of a graphic for the worse is= unacceptable behavior. But for many other graphics, as you've discovered, metafile does= preserve a vector representation. It is superior to bitmap in some cases, equivalent in others. The best compromise we could come up with for file formats which were designed around 1990 and 1995 respectively (for Windows= and Enhanced variants of the metafile format...my dates might be slightly off,= but are about right). > I have Mathematica 7 and Mathematica 5.2 on Windows Vista. I have to > revert back to Mathematica 5.2 when it comes to vector metafile. > What I can't fully understand is, why on the same Windows Vista, > Mathematica 5.2 doesn't have the problem of inability of supporting > high fidelity vector representation, as Mathematica 7 faces? There was a sea change in the quality of graphics between 5.2 and 7. If= you're willing to live with the graphics technology that we created in the 1990s,= you can run it in version 7 by evaluating... << Version5`Graphics` before evaluating your plot commands. You'll get static, non-interactive graphics (the first thing you'll notice is that you can't rotate the 3D graphics) with all of the best features we designed in the 90s, and they= live completely within the limitations of the metafile format. Some of the newer plotting commands may not produce graphics correctly in= this mode, but all of the basic functionality will probably work fine. Sincerely, John Fultz jfultz at wolfram.com User Interface Group Wolfram Research, Inc. > > Thanks > > Yours faithfully, > Lawrence > > > On Oct 22, 2:25 pm, John Fultz <jfu... at wolfram.com> wrote: >> The basic problem is that the Windows and Enhanced metafile formats >> just = > don't >> have enough features to support a high fidelity vector representation >> of = > certain >> Mathematica outputs...for example, those containing color gradients or >> transparency. We elected to rasterize the graphics in these cases figu= > ring that >> a high quality bitmap is better than a low quality vector image. It is= > an >> imperfect solution for an imperfect world. >> >> I would suggest trying to export it as a bitmap with a high enough >> resolu= > tion >> for your needs. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> John Fultz >> jfu... at wolfram.com >> User Interface Group >> Wolfram Research, Inc. >> >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:32:38 -0400 (EDT), Lawrence Teo wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I recently found that Mathematica 7 doesn't copy/paste metafile in >>> vector format anymore, as compared to Mathematica 5.2 >>> >>> Although I could still Copy As > Metafile in Mathematica 7, pasting it >>> into Office 2007 will result in rasterized bitmap image. Rasterized >>> bitmap image means low resolution and bad quality. Unacceptable to me. >>> >>> It doesn't help even if I Export to EMF or WMF format. Inserting those >>> EMF/WMF files into Office 2007 still gives me the same rasterized >>> bitmap image. >>> >>> I also realize that Mathematica could Copy As > Metafile in vector >>> format successfully for certain functions, but not for all functions. >>> For example, Plot2D[] seems to work. Plot3D[] and ContourPlot[] don't, >>> no matter how I try. >>> >>> There is very little information online on this topic. I basically >>> just found 2 other similar cases. Does anyone have any solution and >>> workaround to this? >>> >>> Thanks.