can somebody tell me the easiest way to create a vector image of a model in inventor? I also have other Autodesk tools at my disposai (Product Design Suite).
We have a somebody creating a catalogue of compny parts, and they require nice clean crisp images for the brochure. They have asked for my help as they only seem to be able to create raster images.
any help would be appreciated.
try this site. use the export to save as a jpeg first. Limited to 1MB tho. 2nd link is for a free converter you install.
The online one has a few problems now and then, but the free Inkscape program is actually quite good.
And I've only used the online one once, untill I found Inkscape, so don't know how reliable it is.
alewer has raised a point... What type of image are you trying to convert to a vector?
Is it a line drawing view from an idw or are you trying to get a full colour shaded image to a vector? The 1st will work the 2nd wont - a vector image really isn't ideal for anything more than simple colours.
simplest way is probably to print with PDFCreator and change the file-type in the save-as dialog to svg or eps
but, the best way I've been able to produce line-art from Inventor is this (and a little long-winded):
dxf or dwg out from Inventor
open above file in AutoCAD and remove rubbish.
"wmfout" in AutoCAD to create a wmf vector
Open wmf in Coreldraw and edit (usually find it improves a lot when tweaking line-weights and changing the line properties "corners" option to something other than sharp.)
If you are trying to export a full colour image or something with some shading then a png is a FAR better option. Use PDFCreator to export as this, but can change the options for png to increase the dpi/resolution of the image to something desirable to the printers/marketing-people.
renders & colour images are like photos - lots and lots of pixels, each containing red, green and blue info.
a vector image is a collection of curves & lines, with a start and end point of the same colour. Like dot-to-dot where the contents of each loop can be filled in a colour. To get multiple colours you need multiple loops of each shade ontop of each other. Great for illustrations, line-art and logos but bad for anything with "texture" like a rendering or a photo.
So, a line-drawing or a wireframe outline are great for vectors as they're lines of the same colour. These can be scalled easily as the x&y position of each end point can be scaled without affecting the line's crispness. But, a bitmap image (raster) has each line and curve as specific pixels - as the image is enlarged the pixels get scaled and curves can become very blocky.
if you want more info then google "raster vs vector"
So... if it's a colour image of a 3d object then you really need to use a raster (pixel) image like .bmp, .jpg, .png etc.
Now.. the next question comes in - what image size do you need? A vector, by its nature, can be scaled without any loss of detail, so you don't need to worry about it, but a raster needs to be created with an understand where it's expected to be used. Say someone creates an image which is 600 pixels wide and the marketing ppl place it in a brochure at 4 inches wide - you have those 600pixels scaled across those 4 inches, giving a definition of 150pixels/inch. Now, if the printers want to print at 600dpi resolution then you're giving them an image 4 times lower than their desired quaility and thus it might look sh1t. So, is you know the printer uses 600dpi and the image in the brochure is 4 inches across, ideally you want to create an image 2400 pixels wide, for all the pixels to count. If that makes sense... Usually the minimum resolution for a good printed image is 300dpi, so a 900 pixel wide image will start to look blocky/crap if it's printed over 3" wide. Now... chances are marketing people will crop images and not know what size they want, etc. so you probably need to create images without the full info - so, in a simplistic way, it's generally best to create images with as many pixels as you can (at the expense of file-size and cpu load with both rendering and use by the marketing ppl, etc.). I usually create images at about 2000x2000 pixels as a good balance of file-size and image-detail, which gives a decent (300dpi) print at 170x170mm, so good for the width of A4.
.bmp images are uncompressed "pure" images - every pixel is there with all its info, but makes the filesize massive.
.jpg are v popular but are a "lossy" compression format - converting the image to a jpg basically corrupts the image as the maths behind the scene tries to link similar colours/pixels together. Can result in a v small file-size at the expense of losing image detail. Usually good for photos as nothing in real life is "perfect" so a litle image corruption generally isn't noticed.
.png are a lossless compression format - basically think of a jpg without the image corruption. Very good format but generally unused as it's just a little bit bigger file-size than the jpg, so tends to get overlooked.
So... use a png
Hope that all makes sense and isn't like teaching ur gran about eggs, and all that...
Ahhh, you remind me of my desktop publishing days, and all the photo enhancements I had to perform because not all realize the inherent difficulties in pixel images and scaling. A good basic starting point I think you presented reasonably well so most can understand.
I usually find it's those in marketing (you know, who's living is based upon images) are the least knowledgeable about graphic files...
In the past I have had requests for an image of x dpi, but no indication of what size it's expected to be printed or scaled to... An image is just a collection of pixels, that's how its size is defined... Only when it's printed (or scaled in a dtp package ready to print) it has a dimension which can be used to calculate the dpi and gauge how well it will print.
semi related to pixels and image resolution I still laugh at the HD tv standards and how you hear shop assistants selling a larger tv saying the image is crisper... If it's a 1080 screen it has the same number of pixels whether it's a 32" or 60" screen, there's just a lower pixel-density in the bigger screen and thus it's technically less crisp...
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register
Start with some of our most frequented solutions to get help installing your software.