Discussion: Current OCAD programs

Unless I am mistaken, there used to be a OCAD 9 demo version that allowed you to open .OCD files <= version 9 and make modifications to maps containing fewer than 500 objects. And do rudimentary course setting.

Now, there is an OCAD 10 viewer which doesn't allow you to do anything. But, there is the OCAD 6 full version which helpfully allows you to do anything you want with .OCD files <= version 6.

Can anyone confirm that this is the current state of the world?

You can download the OCAD 10 trial version for 21 days of access to this kind of stuff. Problem is, it will only save maps as OCAD 10.

What I want to know is, how do you convert files back to old formats? What program do I need to take an OCAD 7, 8, 9, or 10 map and save it in an older format? Back to OCAD 6 would be nice, although saving OCAD 8 maps in OCAD 7, OCAD 9 maps in OCAD 7 or 8, and OCAD 10 maps in OCAD 7,8, or 9 would also be useful.

Is there a converter out there?

The converter is called OCAD. Trouble is, it works fine for me until i try mix OCAD6 and 9 files. A map created with the free OCAD 6 doesn't seem to be readable in OCAD9. Haven't got round to 10 yet.

@Feet: Don't know about OCAD10, but you can save an OCAD 7, 8 or 9 file as OCAD 6 - just open the file in it's current version and go File, Save As and select OCAD 6 from the Save as Type drop down menu. However, the functionality of an advanced map file in OCAD 6 is poor as it won't recognise many of the symbols from the later version.

@Invisible, I can open an OCAD 6 file in OCAD 9 (or 7 or 8 for that matter). It asks you if you want to convert it, say yes and you have full functionality. You could do some amendments, then save the file back as v6 (as above). However, you will have lost some functionality when you reopen the file in v6.

I make a lot of school maps (in OCAD 8 usually, but sometimes in 9). I can then save an OCAD 6 version of the file and email it to a teacher. If they have downloaded the free v6, they can set courses on it.

Most of them just prefer me to email a pdf of the file, which they then print and draw courses by hand.

Converting OCAD to pdf is a pain though - you have to do it through the Print menu (select Adobe pdf as the printer), and it takes an average 10-15 minutes each time (and much longer with a big OCAD file). It often crashes too. Does anyone know if it is easier in OCAD 10?

File/Export..., select PDF as the export type

Not in OCAD 8. Guess I'll have to get used to 9, but I don't like the Print menu, or the Symbol Color table to mention just a couple of things that I think 8 does better.

I have noticed when saving a file from OCAD9 to OCAD7 or OCAD6 that it seems to grow remarkably in size, which is fixed by opening in OCAD7 or 6 and running Optimize/Repair. The bloat sometimes runs to more than 200%, but does not appear to cause any other problems, just a very big file and an extra step in the transfer process.

@simmo

I use www.cutepdf.com/products/cutepdf/Writer.asp

Installs itself as a printer, actually creates a pdf.

For me, the bigger problem is it is 21 days. And the ensuing condition that there is effectively no way to do any primitive annotating or course setting on any contemporary map.

I think its a commercial motivation behind that problem ;-}.
Simmo, I can create an OCAD 6 file with 8 or 9, save it and reopen. My problem is a map that was created using an earlier version of 6. I may send it to you so you can see if you have the same problem.

OCAD 6 is free... as you already know..

i dont know about a converter..
but if you just want the course setting part with OCAD 6.. you can download Purple Pen for free.. it's effectively the same thing.. http://purplepen.golde.org/

It works well with OCAD.. have used it plenty of times

I actually use Condes. I think is great, but I've heard Purple Pen is good, too.

Also if you have a mac with OSX or a unix/linux machine there is a routine called ps2pdf which will convert your .eps files to pdf (it uses ghostscript for this I think). But why would you want to ruin the nice ps vectors? If you're going to print and you don't have a ps printer, print straight from OCAD rather than bastardize your fine map as a pdf. If you *have* to go to raster use a 300 DPI tif or gif or - if you must - a 300 DPI jpeg with absolute minimal compression. pdf is false economy when it comes to vector graphics like maps.

Have a look at http://www.adobe.com/print/features/psvspdf/ for Adobe's take on alternative formats.

Experimenting with varous formats printing the IOF test file:
(see http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/print-tech/index.html)
I can't see much difference. Colours maybe better straight from OCAD, but contours over green definitely better going to PDF/EPS (digital on a particular printer, which is always a proviso).

If you have the time and patience, get an offset-printed version of the IOF test file and compare alternatives.

Eddie:

But why would you want to ruin the nice ps vectors? If you're going to print and you don't have a ps printer, print straight from OCAD rather than bastardize your fine map as a pdf.

...you might be missing the part where the PDF format supports vector art. :) Printing from OCAD straight to PDF (via CutePDF) generates a vector PDF.

You're right, I've never seen a true-vector PDF, only rasters. Those have been terrible. This begs the question: why bother with the vector PDF when you can just print to eps straight from OCAD (no need for CutePDF)? I worry about other eps to PDF converters not writing vector PDF.

Because essentially everybody can read .pdf files but .eps is not idiot-proof.

Apparently neither is pdf if there are both vector and raster versions. Is there a way to tell which one you've got without printing it?

Yup, raster PDFs are invariably either crap, or so large that you can't do anything with them.

Main reason why you would is portability - every noob and his grandfather knows how to read PDFs, most of the Windows world doesn't know how to deal with an EPS. Obviously printing shops are happy with EPS, it's only when you're sending maps to the public that PDF becomes useful.

And your other question - zoom in on it. If it pixelates, you've got a raster. If the lines stay nice and smooth at 2000% zoom, it's vector.

Here, have a look at this file - vector PDF generated from OCAD 9 via CutePDF.

Looks good. As long as everyone is producing vector pdf for maps I have no problem with it, but I worry that people will assume all pdfs are alike. I can see someone finding a jpeg of a map somewhere and converting it to a pdf and then passing it around for printing. I suspect this doesn't happen too often with eps (although it is possible to do this).

In the PC world, EPS plugins are available for programs some common image shareware programs like Irfanview. The plugins have some limitations, but they do the job. Better still, just install ghostscript and GSview.

Juffy - can we have a look at the same file generated via OCAD pdf and eps export?

Ocad PDF
EPS

Interestingly, the OCAD PDF (504kb) is three times the size of the CutePDF one (174kb), even with the mysterious "Compress File" checkbox ticked. Without compression the OCAD PDF is three times larger again - 1.74mb. It's also decided that I want my page in landscape without giving me the option to change it, and I think it's mucked up the scale.

Log - sure, we know that. Try explaining Irfanview and its plugins to someone who has trouble opening Word documents without crashing the computer. :)

If someone has trouble going past the opening of word, i wouldn't be letting them near condes or OCAD.

For what it's worth, some comparative file sizes using
PrintTech2006.OCD:
to PDF via OCAD 10 export, with compression - 834Kb
with no compression - 2883 Kb
to EPS via OCAD 10 export - 741 Kb
to PDF via cutePDF - 1007 Kb
to PDF via deskPDF - 977 Kb
to PDF via import to InDesign and export as PDF:
- compressed and uncompressed OCAD - 312 Kb
- cutePDF - 464 Kb
- OCAD EPS - 497 Kb

Quality seemed comparable at 100% magnification, but at 2400X, best quality was OCAD PDF export (the compressed and uncompresed files, and files generated via InDesign seemed identical).

May I throw some light on a few of the OCAD/PDF issues? I am not a graphics techo but as part owner of a design and print centre I have picked up a bit of their knowledge along the way.

PDF file sizes are no indication of the quality of the content. The key reason is that there are numerous selectable compressions both lossless and lossy. A consequential reason is that if you are using an el cheapo PDF maker, then you get some or no selections as to output of your valuable content. That means the software designer has made selections based on expected typical use - el cheapo use is expected to be home or small business and those types of documents simply do not need high quality content therefore many lossy May I throw some light on a few of the OCAD/PDF issues? I am not a graphics techo but as part owner of a design and print centre I have picked up a bit of their knowledge along the way.

PDF file sizes are no indication of the quality of the content. The key reason is that there are numerous selectable compressions both lossless and lossy. A consequential reason is that if you are using an el cheapo PDF maker, then you get some or no selections as to output of your valuable content. That means the software designer has made selections based on expected typical use - el cheapo use is expected to be home or small business and those types of documents simply do not need high quality content therefore many lossy compressions are bound to be built in or even worse, vector art may always be converted to raster.

OCAD's compression option has no impact on the quality of content. My guess is that it is a structural and lossless content compression. Use it as it cuts down on internet send time and also on speed of RIPing at your print centre.

Producing a PDF directly from Condes (via File | Print or Print | Maps) will always produce a raster file. This can never approach the resolution nor colour fidelity of OCAD's vector art although it may be quite acceptable for low key events.

Exporting an EPS from Condes does produce vector art and gives essentially the same result as producing a PDF from OCAD. Unfortunately, unless you have Acrobat Distiller or InDesign or similar. IrfanView cannot read Condes' customised EPS output in my experience. Many printers still gladly accept EPS files as they are easy to use albeit outside normal PDF workflow.

My tips?

1. Invest in an industrial strength PDF maker. OK, Acrobat costs a bomb but Jaws Creator is relatively a song and (in conjunction with Jaws Editor) is used in many commercial print centres in Europe and USA. Another contender in Australia is PDF-XChange which along with Jaws I use at home. Both have useful selectable options.

2. When outputting your PDF select Press Quality (Highest). For your home or business printer High Print Quality will be fine.

3. From Condes, export EPS for commercial print whether offset or digital.

Finally, if more than a couple of people are interested in a bit more depth on the above, I will gladly write a 1 pager, put it on a web site and link to it from here.

For printing at FedEx Office (formerly FedEx Kinko's), I use the Kinko's File Prep Tool, which creates a KDF file (which I think is just a variant on a PDF). I have no idea whether this software is still supported, but I think I still have a CD for it around somewhere. File size is pretty small, print quality is great.

Kenny, thanks for the clarification. I installed gDoc Creator from the Jaws link and generated the PrintTech2006 test map (1122 Kb) - once again, the PDF generated by OCAD10 seems superior at 2400 magnification (viewed in Adobe Reader 9.1.3).
The discrepancies evident between the two PDF versions are also evident when comparing the gDoc PDF with the original map at similar magnification in OCAD.
Condes EPS export seems to be of a similar quality to OCAD PDF export.

Hawkeye have you looked at Corpse eps export?

Hawkeye, your observation re OCAD output quality fits with my notes re PDF creation options. OCAD will have taken care to ensure that the most appropriate options are pre-selected for output of their PDFs. That is why I always use their Export : PDF unless I am using Condes in which case I use Condes Export | EPS. (btw in very general terms an EPS can be considered as a halfway stage in producing a PDF).

Yet the Jaws output may be equally acceptable in print. Why? Because a 2400 magnification is likely well beyond the capability of any press to resolve. Thus in print you would likely get an identical result in terms of 'resolution', But I would still go for the OCAD output because a myriad of other options may produce a technically better result in orienteering terms.

Hope this isn't too much of a mish Mash ;-)

Kenny - agreed, maybe some of the IOF mapping commission would be able to spot the differences, but I doubt anyone else would.

Simmo - the EPS file exported from Corpse (using the EPS version of the map generated by OCAD10 as the background map in Corpse) is the same quality as the original EPS file generated from OCAD.

Conclusion - the limiting factor in map production is the print process, not the file formats used (no real surprises in that conclusion).

Corpse observation in response to Simmo's comment above.

The Queensland Champs last weekend used Corpse with digital print maps. However I noticed that there was no overprint effect i.e. the control circle obliterated all symbols beneath including useful (some would say critical) boulders, contour segments etc. It isn't practical to break the circle for every feature hence the importance of overprint effect for toner print that simulates the effect that occurs naturally in offset ink printing.

Maybe Corpse has that facility for EPS export (Condes does) and it simply wasn't turned on?.

kenny i'd say it is not only practical but essential to break the circle for every (important) feature it would otherwise obscure... there aren't that many circles you have to do it for (easily less than a hundred controls most of the time, of course there are exceptions eg jukola), and even "the effect that occurs naturally in offset ink printing" isn't good enough - critical features are still harder to see than with broken circles.

Shep is spot on! It's not difficult to break circles and lines in Corpse, and you simply have to do it - no question! The way Corpse works is to put an eps overlay on the eps of the map, so obviously map features are not going to show through. The colour order in the original OCAD file is completely irrelevant in Corpse.