[softwarelist] Re: pdf, ovation, risc oss

In article <4e1400828cchris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Johnson
   <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There is certainly demand, but how much is it really? David
> mentions 500 takers.

Who knows? (It took an awful log long time for the number of Iyonix
users interested in Select to reach 100, for instance). Last year,
referring to the possibility of direct PostScript output from Ovation
Pro for RISC OS, David Pilling wrote:

> The problem comes down to numbers, if as I suspect less than 20
> people want this feature, it is hard to justify spending a couple
> of weeks on it.

In article <4e1400828cchris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Johnson
   <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What is needed is a realistic tally of all the "me too's", and how
> much they would contribute.

As Allan Leighton, B. G. Hill, Ralph Valmai, Evan Clark, Barry Allen,
David Mills, Andy Marks, Richard Partridge, Tim Powys-Lybbe, Ron
Briscoe, Michael Talibard, Martin Wuerthner and Bruce Goatly have
already said in one way or other: count me in. (N.b. that's not even
twenty people yet!)

Like some others, I would be prepared to pay what would be, to me, a
substantial sum. (Last year John Cartmell offered to kiss David
Pilling's feet but sensibly offered a cash alternative . . .).
However:

In article <$ZDt6UCGDmNEFwE7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Pilling
   <flist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think such a project would raise enough money to pay the
> programmer. (500 copies at 30 quid a time?)

So that's 15000 quid, say. If we include John Cartmell putting his
money where his lips are, that would be 1000 quid each: a bit more
than the "substantial sum" I had in mind.

But what would be the object of the exercise? While a PostScript 3
driver for RISC OS as a whole would be a good thing, for me at least
it wouldn't be the whole solution. I find it possible to work round
most current limitations, such as problems printing sprites, but the
biggest single problem is that the RISC OS printing system assumes the
RGB color model, but when printing either to my own PostScript devices
or to file (in order to make a composite PDF to be sent to a litho or
digital offset printer) I need colours to be specified in CMYK space.
I get round this by printing to file then editing the PostScript
before sending it to a printer or converting to PDF, but I wish I
didn't have to.

When I first used Impression Publisher Plus, then later Ovation Pro
with its colour supplement, their handling of CMYK and spot colours
was all I needed -- I didn't have a colour PostScript printer myself,
and printing companies wanted colour-separated films. Both these
programs were up to the job, sending separated (greyscale) output
through the RISC OS PostScript drivers. Now I need composite CMYK
output most of the time and it's much more difficult to achieve.

Porting the direct PostScript output of Ovation Pro for Windows to the
RISC OS version would be no help to someone wanting PostScript 3
printing from Impression or Techwriter, but it would get round the
problem of RGB-only !Printers.

In article <3VIvJaGqIrNEFw15@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Pilling
   <flist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> funny that on Windows apps. tend to generate their own PostScript.

That's inefficient and inelegant, but if RISC OS, like Windows,
restricts how well an individual application can print to PostScript
devices then maybe the only solution is direct PostScript output from
the application itself.

In article <e0eef3134e.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Martin Wuerthner
   <public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Speaking of PDF generation: I have just ported GhostScript 8.50 to
> RISC OS

That's wonderful. When will it be available?
(http://www.mw-software.com/ still offers GhostScript 7.03).


Peter Newble.

Other related posts: