Thoughts on papercraft model file formats?

[trainfanM]

Thoughts on papercraft model file formats?

Hello, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the file formats used to distribute your papercraft projects.

The jpg, png, and gif formats are obvious choices, but my initial thought was to distribute my own project models in the resolution independent pdf format.

However, after a few tests I've come to the conclusion that pdf isn't so good when it comes to color profiles--my other goal was color consistency when other people try to print it out, since I devoted a lot of time to determine and use official colors.

I created my model in Adobe Illustrator CS, but it seems the program tries to convert the colors to a target device's profile, which can't really be known when the file is offered to anyone. Illustrator also doesn't seem to use ICC profiles for pdf. Because of this, the pdf comes in as untagged, or it's assigned a generic RGB profile when opened in another program.

If your goals are high resolution and color fidelity, what do you recommend? Am I better off to just output, for example, a high resolution png and zip up the various model files?

What are your thoughts? Thanks.

[Retired_for_now]

I opt for pdf. Pdf makes it easy for the modeler to view and print the file and seems to preserve shapes well. The pdf print functions also allows adjusting the scale - reducing is easy though enlarging usually requires a poster print and piecing together parts.
I don't lock the files either so you can modify them as desired - more educational incentive...
Yogi

[MacSongLi]

I concur with Yogi, pdf seems the most flexible.

Gary

[whulsey]

I'd vote for PDF also. Its been years since I've worked on Illustrator, but when I was still doing graphics/pre-press we used to send files as PDF's to the printer (and this was after converting to CMYK) with very little problems with color shifts.

[Yale]

It's hard to imagine that any file format could deliver absolutely consistent color results, given the huge variety of printers we use. But not all of us have scientific precision when we see color, so I can't complain about PDF, PDO, JPG, or any other common format. And my recent shape/printing problems with PDO files evaporated when I converted them to PDF. This format is so common, and does so many things right, that I doubt you'll find a better alternative.

[McTschegsn]

I am into pdf too... The other (picture only) formats lack scaling. Pdf is a very versatile format which also can handle vectored design. No problems when scaling it up.
Colors depend on printers and screen settings very much.
I for myself do (meanwhile) a test print in a very downscaled manner just to see how the colors are. The most printer drivers today have the option to adjust colors so you can get them to closely match a photograph or another picture.

[Kevin WS]

PDF - easiest to print, rescale etc. And as Whulsey says, very little colour shift.

Graphic files can be a nightmare for modellers, especially those without editors who are then unable to rescale. And rescaling (say from OO to HO) can be a nightmare with the editor as well. And photo editors can can also do weird things dependng on their default colour space settings.

[airdave]

PDF is a container... a document package containing things like images.

jpeg, png, gif are compression formats* for image files.
*Ways of retaining certain elements of the original, but in a compressed file.

So, I think your question is a two parter.

First being: what format do you output your model artwork in?

And then: how do you prefer to package it for general publishing.

Just because a file is PDF, does not guaranty any level of quality, or scalability, etc
That would depend on what settings and optimizations have been done during the creation of the final PDF.

I happen to use jpeg compression in my PDFs...
thats the format the PDF will use to compress and optimize images within the document.
But because I publish directly from Coreldraw, I sometimes allow the PDF to retain vector qualites and features.

Text components can also be dealt with in many different ways (within a PDF).

There are many designers who output finished model pages in gif and png format (as well as jpeg).
gif and png compressions can offer better quality, but only with certain types of artwork and images. Its not an across the board thing.

They may share those pages, as individual gif/png image files.
Or they might package them together in one PDF.
In that case, the gif or png format is kind of pointless, since the PDF will reformat everything
into whatever option has been preset.

Best option is to output directly from the paint or draw program you are using,
do not "save" as any particular format,
publish directly into a PDF
(making sure to choose the specifc settings and optimizations you prefer before you publish)

if you haven't already optimized for the web, you might consider doing that too
(if your PDF publisher has that feature)
but make sure to preset your optimization settings
to retain the quality and elements you require.

If you are publishing a single model page, that is all raster image,
eg saved as a gif, png r jpeg image already,
then saving it into a PDF will add nothing...except uneccessary file size.
You would be better to publish it as a jpeg image which will give you high quality at the best file size.

but if you want to package multiple pages (of raster images), you could just put them all
into a folder, and zip it up

...or compile them into a single PDF file.
Once again, your final PDF (if not properly optimized) could end up with a considerable data file size.
PDF packaging can add a lot of PDF things...things you may not even want in your model package.

[Raja Ahsani]

I'd say vector-based PDF, like Nobi's or Stahlhart's kits, easy to rescale and repaint
but then again JPG can be as good as PDF graphically, e.g. Inwald's models

[Kevin WS]

Dave, thanks for the explaination.

Very interesting points!