How do I get high quality images in my output files?

[Peter Breeden]

Hi folks:

Here is what I am doing...

1. I grab a 24-bit bmp of the screen I need for the Help system (using either Prt Scn/Paint or SnagIt).
2. I reduce the image to 65 percent of its original size (manditory because the image is very large).
3. I insert the image into the Help topic.
4. I build the HTML and PDF files, respectively.

Result:

The image resolution (and quality), especially in the PDF file seems lower than it is in the Help source file. I even tried using WMF images in the Help topic to see if that would solve the problem. And, under the Target (HTML) property tab, I have tried building the file with the Generate "web-safe" Images option enabled and disabled (PNG, GIF and JPG options all tested with different low quality results).

So, my question is, how do I configure the Help system so I have high quality images in my output files (HTML and PDF)? Is the problem arising because I am reducing the original 24-bit bmp to 65 percent of the original size?

Objective:

I would like pristine quality images in my HTML and PDF output files.

Many thanks!

Cheers,
Peter

[RamonS]

I'm facing a similar issue and we try to find a solution to this for a long time. Screen shots that get resized seem to turn into fuzzy mush once published although the source file looks much crisper.

[doc_guy]

Have you tried using MadCap Capture to re-size the results for print targets? You can have it change the DPI to reduce image size while increasing overall quality of the image.

That works nicely for my outputs.

[ccardimon]

I get fuzzy image output, too. I thought someone said the iamge resizing was a false functionality that didn't work as advertised.

[RamonS]

I did a test resizing a screen shot to 85% using
- SnagIt
- Capture
- Flare (resizing within the editor to match the dimensions of the other images)

Interestingly enough, the image resized in Flare looked best, but in general all three images look OK in the original, but terrible in the output. I didn't bother with printing because in my case I deal only with on-screen output.

[Peter Breeden]

Hi folks:

Thanks for all your replies. It looks like some of us are stuggling to find better image resolution in our output files. I do not have Capture as part of my software, but given what is said above, Capture does not seem to produce a better quality result for some. Also, I don't think it would be realistic for me to start individually resizing 2000+ images...

It would be nice to capture a vector image, like wmf/emf, insert it into the Help system and then configure the Help system to NOT Convert the vector image to PNG, JPG or GIF. Has anybody tried that? Can we turn that feature OFF somehow? Some of us do not need to publish the Help system on the Web and, therefore, it only runs through the application for which it was designed. If this is the case, the images do not need to be Web-compliant. So why reduce them to Web-safe images?

For some reason, my test wmf and emf images import into the Help system distorted right off the bat. I think I might have some feature misconfigured in the MadCap application for that to be happening. Thoughts?

There has to be a simple answer to this question, folks. There is no way a customer is going to accept "adequate" image quality in this competitive environment. Remember the old 3.2 megapixel cameras...? Would you buy one of those know knowing that there are 12+ megapixel cameras out there that provide so much more detail and quality? Probably not.

Thoughts? Ideas? Solutions?

Cheers,
Peter

[NorthEast]

It would be nice to capture a vector image, like wmf/emf, insert it into the Help system and then configure the Help system to NOT Convert the vector image to PNG, JPG or GIF. Has anybody tried that? Can we turn that feature OFF somehow? Some of us do not need to publish the Help system on the Web and, therefore, it only runs through the application for which it was designed. If this is the case, the images do not need to be Web-compliant. So why reduce them to Web-safe images?

For some reason, my test wmf and emf images import into the Help system distorted right off the bat. I think I might have some feature misconfigured in the MadCap application for that to be happening. Thoughts?

I use WMF images in my projects - they're only converted to raster (PNG) format in help outputs, in my PDF print output they remain in vector format and don't lose any quality.

For the help targets, I tick Generate resized copies of scaled images (on Advanced tab), otherwise the converted WMFs look terrible.

I'm guessing Flare converts WMF/EMF files in help targets, as not all browsers support them - I know Firefox doesn't.

[Peter Breeden]

Hi Dave:

I will try this and report back tomorrow.

My Generate resized copies of scaled images option (on Advanced tab) is already selected, so I will leave that as is.

BTW, when you initially import the WMF file into your Help topic, is the image distorted (low rez)? However, when you generate your HTML output file, the same image is in PNG format and of much higher quality? This is what I am assuming from you last post.

Let me know.

Many thanks!

Cheers,
Peter

[NorthEast]

BTW, when you initially import the WMF file into your Help topic, is the image distorted (low rez)? However, when you generate your HTML output file, the same image is in PNG format and of much higher quality? This is what I am assuming from you last post.

No, the WMF quality in the Flare editor looks exactly the same as in the help output.

The pic below shows the WMF in the output - the 'Generate resized..' option is off on the left, and on on the right. The image in the Flare editor looks exactly the same as the one on the right.

wmf.png

I wouldn't say the quality is as good as you may get when converting a WMF file in graphics applications (such as Photoshop), which anti-alias (smooth) the image; but it's comparable to a lot of other applications.

[Peter Breeden]

Hi Dave:

Thanks for clarifying this. The WMF image in the Help system before I compile looks okay. However, when I generate the HTML file, the image comes through blurry with low rez. I selected to convert to PNG (web-safe option) and the image quality improved, but not what I would call adequate quality. My bmp files are still the clearest off all the options that we have tried thus far, including the WMF/EMF files.

One thing I noticed is that I am dealing with a much more detailed image than the images you showed me above: small fonts in menus/tables interlaced with small graphics and tabs of information with text on buttons, and so on. So, a huge amount of detail compressed into one image of about 8 inches wide and 4.8 inches high. This is why I am looking for better resolution; the text in the image needs to be readable, and it is, but I simple want perfect images. I know a vector image resizes perfectly, but I can't seem to achieve this quality in my output files. Perhaps the technology is not yet developed in Help systems? If this is the case, it should be the highest priority feature for development in the next release of the software. I can't believe we are still dealing with fuzzy images in software in 2010... Makes no sense to me.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Peter

[NorthEast]

My mistake, I got the wrong end of the stick with the target settings.

I had the Generate web-safe images setting off; so the left image is actually a scaled WMF file, and the one on the right is a PNG (so the PNG is basically Flare's 'web-safe' conversion, at that scale).

Anyway, if I don't scale the WMF in the topic, and don't tick 'Generate resized..', the WMF looks much better in the output (comparable to the converted PNG).

The display quality isn't fantastic, of either an unconverted WMF file, or a Flare converted PNG.
Saying that, it's no worse than it looks when I open the the WMF in most applications and image viewers (only tools like Photoshop do a good job).

[Peter Breeden]

Hi Dave:

Our brainstorming here is good and I think we have some positive results to report regarding the HTML output file, the PDF output file is still generating (takes 45 mins), so I do not have the results for that yet.

My test graphics are WMF and EMF, which were imported into the topic, one underneath the other (full instuctions listed below).

Important: I tried an HTML build with both the Generate web-safe images and Generate resized... options turned off. The results were not very good. So, I then turned both options back on and chose to set the web-safe image to PNG, like you suggested. The EMF image came out very nice in the HTML output and even displays clearly in the Help topic (before building the Help system). Here are the exact steps I followed, and note that I used MS Visio to reduce and save the image:

1) Press Ctrl + Alt + Prt Scr to capture the image on your screen.
2) Paste the image on a new sheet in MS Visio 2003.
3) Resize (reduce) the graphic using the Size and Position window in MS Visio (my exact settings were 8.04 X 4.8 inches).
4) Go to File > Save As and save the MS Visio file as an EMF file.
5) Import the image into your Help topic. In my case, I imported both an EMF and a WMF file for comparison purposes. The EMF file imported with a better resolution than the WMF file.
6) Open your Project Organizer, double-click on the HTML target to open the HTML target tab and ensure that the Generate web-safe images and Generate resized... options are turned on. Set the web-safe image option to PNG.
7) Save the Help topic, and then build your target HTML file.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Peter

[NorthEast]

Glad you're getting better results.

I hadn't read your original post, just the reply mentioning WMF/EMF; and I hadn't realised you're working with screenshots and not vector images.
I'm assuming Flare's resizing of bitmaps (PNG, JPG, etc) wasn't good enough quality; as enclosing a bitmap in a vector format like WMF/EMF seems a very convoluted process - and I'm surprised you're getting half-decent results. Anyway, if it works!

[Peter Breeden]

Hi Dave:

By bitmap, I mean the .bmp file extention using 24-bit bitmap quality. So, the images were very high quality to start off, but then I stated resizing them before inserting them as reduced bitmaps (still .bmp) in the Help topics.

Okay, more feedback from yesterdays test...

The HTML output images are nice, as stated in yesterday's findings. However, the PDF output is missing both the WMF and EMF images (not there at all, just a blank space to indicate there was supposed to be an image there). And, I tried generating with both the Generate resize... option On and Off as configured in the Advanced menu of the PDF target.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Peter

[Peter Breeden]

Hi Dave:

A different approach...

Okay, so I decided not to go with the EMF images because they do not appear in my PDF output file.

I'm resorting to the .BMP (24-bit bitmap) images, but with a different approach that yields a slightly better resolution in both HTML and PDF output files.

Important: Keep in mind while reading these instructions that I am building the HTML file with the style sheet .css property of img > unclassified set to 9.25 inches. For the PDF build, I change this property to 7.80 inches. Also, your Master Page Layout needs to be set up appropriately to handle the larger images (i.e., your margins).

1) Press Ctrl + Alt + Prt Scr to capture the image on your screen.
2) Paste the image on a new sheet in MS Visio 2003. Do not reduce the image size.
3) Go to File > Save As and save the MS Visio image as a Windows Bitmap (*.bmp; *.dib) image to your Help system Images folder.
4) Import the image into your Help topic. The image should appear with improved resolution.

5) Select one of the following options according to your build needs (either HTML or PDF output file):

For HTML output:
- Open your Project Organizer, double-click on the HTML target to open the HTML target tab to the Advanced menu and select the Generate web-safe images and Generate resized... options. Set the web-safe image option to PNG.

For PDF output:
- Open your Project Organizer, double-click on the PDF target to open the PDF target tab to the Advanced menu and select the Generate resized... option.

6) Save the Help topic, and then build your target HTML/PDF file.

If anybody has a better solution, please let us know.

Many thanks!

[Media]

Hi
I turned off the Generate resized copies of scaled images (on Advanced tab) and I have better result on my output, but not the original quality of screen captures. I have imported from MS Word2013 and all my screen captures are PNG files. My outputs are CHM, HTML5, PDF and Word. Any ideas?

Flare 10
Windows 7 64-bit

Thanks,
Media

[doc_guy]

I know, late reply to an old thread. Sorry about that.

I will point out that you want to make sure that the browser isn't resizing your images. You want to get your images to their size using an image editing tool. That will almost always render better results than allowing the browser to resize the image.

Additionally, remember that you are capturing images at 96 dpi or there abouts. You aren't capturing a hi resolution image, so you are going to see jagged lines/etc. The only way to reduce that is to work with higher resolution images.

In Capture (free with Flare 9 and Flare 10; if you don't have it, contact your rep at MadCap), that means you don't want to resize the image. You want to scale up the resolution, which has the side-effect of resizing the image smaller.

I find that if I scale the image to about 150 to 200 dpi, I get a much crisper image on both the screen and in printed output.

I've also found that if I magnify my screen ( Ctrl + + or, Ctrl and the plus button at the same time) and take a screen shot of the bigger version, I can scale up the DPI higher giving me even better resolution.

The problem with image resizing is almost always also related to the image's resolution. Screen shots are notorious because they start with such low resolution.

Now, what would be awesome is if Flare would, when you drag to resize an image, modify the resolution of the image, not the actual image size. That would be awesome.

[kathryngz]

I was glad to find this thread, because I've been having the same problem with images that are reduced in quality in PDF output.

Paul, how did you set the DPI to 150 - 200 in Capture? The only options I have on the Flare Print tab of the profile are 72, 96, 300, or 400. When I chose 300, it made the image so small it was unreadable (although I could see that some of the jagged lines looked better )

Also, I'm not seeing the Generate resized copies of scaled images on the Advanced tab or the PDF tab of my PDF target. Did I misunderstand where it's supposed to be?

[SteveS]

I think DocGuy is using another program to resample his images. Resampling is different to displaying images at different resolutions, it changes the image so its native reolution is the resampled resolution.

To try to explain, if I capture a user form that is 5 inches by five inches, and my screen resolution is 96dpi (lets say 100 dpi to make the maths easier) the number of 'dots' is 500 by 500 or 250000 dots in total. If I display the image at 300 dpi, I'm not changing the number of dots but I'm displaying my 500 dots wide at 300 to the inch. This makes my image just over an inch and a half wide! If I resample the image to 300 dpi, each of my dots is changed to 3 dots. Now my image is 1500 dots by 1500 dots or 2250000 dots. Much higher resolution!

But wait, is that new found resolution actually increasing the quality of my image? Not really, because there is no new information. In fact, resampling can result in information loss, although the programs doing resampling allow different algorithms to be used so the user can pick the one that produces the best result. Add to this the filters available in these programs and you can often enhance the resample image so that it is 'better' than the original.

In most cases, if a graphics program is displaying an image at (for example) 300 dpi (or pixels) it takes the dots captured at 96 dpi (standard screen capture on a Windows machine) and displays those dots at 300 per inch. This means the image is now less than one third the size of the initial capture.

We produce printed material, and I leave all screen captures at standard resolution. We had someone who decided the images should be at 300 dpi (makes sense, more dots per inch means clearer images, right?) This meant we had to resize the images to make them viewable, but we ended up with slightly blurred screenshots. Meanwhile, the ones using native resolution were fine.

This works for screen shots, user interfaces are designed to look good at 96 or 72 (MAC) dpi. It does not work for images such as photographs.

If you are scanning images, capture in the highest practical resolution. You will need some post processing to remove the moiré pattern. This means you are capturing the most information (dots) giving you much greater flexibility when it comes to processing.

If you are unsure, try capturing images using different settings and pasting them into a Word document. If the image is the wrong size add another copy of the image, but resize it. Print the document, and select the clearest images. I'm pretty certain you'll pick the 96dpi capture/ 96dpi display...

[kathryngz]

Steve, thanks for the helpful information. I didn't realize we were talking about two different things: display resolution and resampled resolution. I'll take your advice and play around to try to find the best (re)solution.

Kathryn

[doc_guy]

Actually, I do change the print resolution in MadCap Capture.

While it looks like that box is a drop-down only box, you can actually select the text in the box and type in your own value, so you aren't limited to the DPIs displayed: