Linux.com

Feature

Using a Linux desktop for graphics, media production

By Chris Gulker on December 12, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

During Gulf War I, I was sitting on the picture desk of a daily newspaper, framegrabbing video, prepping wire photos, and making up street editions with a $50,000 Mac and $100,000 worth of Sony video gear. During Gulf War II I was again framegrabbing for publication, but this time with an $800 Linux box and a $39 video card. Indeed, Linus Torvalds was still finishing Linux in 1991, even as U.S. troops were marching into Kuwait. Linux has matured tremendously since then, to the point that my 2003 Red Hat 9/Ximian XD2 workstation is some two orders of magnitude cheaper and at least that much faster and producing higher-quality output into the bargain.

Linux desktops have clearly matured and become useful for daily media production, including graphics-intensive media. Tons of Web pages are authored and updated from Linux typically with desktop tools such as Bluefish and GIMP, as well as Perl and PHP-based server-side content management systems.

Linux tools work well in heterogeous systems

Built on open standards, Linux Web tools also tend to work well in heterogenous environments, where they can help glue diverse systems such as Windows- or Mac-based content management to Apache-based Web servers. The blog at gulker.com works in just this way using (formerly) xawtv (now tvtime), GIMP, and Mozilla to place framegrabs, graphics, and text.

I think it's likely that Linux desktops daily produce as many Web pages as, say, the top 100 daily newspapers, and Linux-oriented sites alone -- Slashdot, NewsForge, Linux Journal et al. -- have tens of millions of unique visitors monthly, putting them in a circulation class with major national print publications. Linux may have a small number of desktop users, but those users are highly productive. All the Linux pubs put together likely have less staff than any single paper on the top 100 list.

While Linux and the Web grew up together, the Linux desktop has also become useful for print media. TeX, the typesetting computer language originally developed on a DEC minicomputer in 1980, is alive and well on Linux. In March, India's largest phone company used TeX and a PostgreSQL database to turn out 400,000 copies of the two-volume telephone directory for Thiruvananthapuram, the capital of Kerala province. The project, which had required 50 people and six months' time using conventional print production technology, was accomplished in four months by a smaller team using Linux.

While TeX and the LaTeX app continue to be widely used for developing technical, scientific, and mathematical documentation, Linux has also made gains in areas requiring more user-friendly WYSIWIG applications and print-focused features and utilities.

Color management always a key issue

One area where other platforms, notably the Mac, have an advantage is mature applications for handling CMYK (cyan, magenta, yellow, and black) color, which is the color model used in printing. CMYK image files -- referred to as "color separations" in the trade -- are surprisingly complicated and difficult to master. The GIMP, at least prior to the 2.0 release, only works in RGB color, the model used by the human eye, computer monitors, and Web graphics. While there is at least one GIMP plug-in, Separate, to convert RGB to CMYK, and some workarounds using GIMP's channels feature, nothing on Linux matches Adobe Photoshop and other proprietary apps for CMYK capabilities.

However, a new open source page layout application called Scribus helps solve that problem by taking advantage of the PDF file format. PDF, particularly a variant called PDF/X, has emerged as the standard format for print production. Virtually every magazine, newspaper, and color ad is delivered to its printer as a high-resolution PDF file that contains a mix of vector and raster data.

Scribus gives users a Quark Xpress- or Adobe InDesign-like pasteboard interface for making up publications such as magazines and newsletters. In the process, Scribus can embed RGB bitmapped graphics files in the documents (using an XML-based native format) before exporting them to PDF format. Scribus also takes advantage of the open source littlecms libraries to provide color management -- called CMS in the trade -- a crucial step toward guaranteeing color fidelity throughout the scanning, layout, and output process. CMS systems use open color standards to match the color space of, say, a scanner or digital camera to a monitor or printing press via various color-matching algorithms and lookup tables.

PDF files that contain RGB image files can be converted to CMYK by a RIP -- Raster Image Processor -- a computer that is used to drive the laser plate maker that makes the CMYK plates that will be mounted on the printing press. The most modern digital presses dispense with the platemaker and write directly to printing drums using technologies not unlike those used by office laser printers. Ghostscript, it should be noted, is popular with RIP makers because of its low cost and large feature set.

One advantage of this approach is that the RGB color gamut is, in practice, much larger than the CMYK gamut that is left post-conversion. The same PDF/RGB file may be able to be RIPped for a wide variety of output devices (four-color offset press, digital press, high-end ink jet), whereas each of those output media would require a separate CMYK file for optimum quality. This is particularly important for applications such as advertising, where the same ad layout might be placed in a newspaper or magazine, or on a bus card, billboard, or other large space. The PDF/RGB file can, in theory, fill all three bills with proper attention to issues such as image resolution and color management.

More on page 2 ...

 

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Using a Linux desktop for graphics, media production

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Oookay...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2003 01:41 AM
I have trouble believing the author is or was a graphics professional. For one thing, sending RGB PDF files to printers is a pretty bad idea; designers have no control over the final output (mismatched blacks are one of many problems that can arise), and many printers refuse to even accept anything with RGB data in it.

And to me (as a professional graphic designer), the lack of spot colour support is just as bad as the lack of CMYK. 90% of retail packaging (for example) uses specific Pantone inks, and designers need software that can handle them in combination with process inks. If I had to rely on RGB PDFs, I wouldn't last a day in my job.

"But can publishers resist open source for long?" Answer: as long as there is absolutely no Open Source equivalent of Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. Duh!

Paul

#

Re:Oookay...

Posted by: Randall McFarlane on December 13, 2003 03:01 AM
Why you are you putting down on using alternatives. Yes you leaned how to do things on whatever os your using. Sometimes before you start to judge you should actually use the program and then make a judgment after using it for a length of time. You can’t just go in and cick a few times and say ok it doesn’t do that or I can’t do that. To bad you don’t know a thing about free alternatives. Maybe you need more research then talk.

#

Re:Oookay...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2003 03:27 AM
Your reading comprehension needs some help<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the author is talking about converting RGB files ("PDF files that contain RGB image files can be converted to CMYK by a RIP") ahead of printing. What he's saying that these new CMYK files will indeed include the full gamut of RGB colors as a result of the conversion. Gulker indeed is a longtime graphics porfessional and knows what he's talking about.

#

Re:Oookay...

Posted by: Hillbilly on December 13, 2003 05:29 AM
Photoshop is fine for those that want it, but it has too much baggage that is not needed, good photographs need very little editing, usually resizing/scaling down a little, maybe adjusting bright/contrast just a little bit. no big deal, The Gimp does this just fine (and more), why would i want to pay Adobe several hundred dollars for software that the Gimp can do for free???

#

Re:Oookay...

Posted by: Rhaze on December 13, 2003 12:38 PM
I never liked GIMP much and always preferred Photoshop... until I tried 1.3. Although I can't honestly say it's because of any new features, I feel that most of the problems I had with GIMP were interface related. With 1.3 (which will become 2.0) the interface is much more intuitive.

I'm sold on GIMP now. It does everything I need it to do. Some things too a while to adapt to, but everything I used to use Photoshop for is there in GIMP and--as you said--more.

#

Photoshop several hundred dollars?

Posted by: Fonze on December 14, 2003 07:37 AM
Where are you stealing it from?



Adobe says Photoshop is $650.00



Several hundred is the price you pay every year or two for upgrade versions.



I use the Gimp and its capabilities are more than I can ask for. I'm more than happy and productive with it.



And for desktop publishing, look at <A HREF="http://scribus.planetmirror.com/" TITLE="planetmirror.com">Scribus</a planetmirror.com>. Another excellent product I use and am productive with. The link brings you to the changelog/features.



I'd include a link to Grokking the Gimp, the online/downloadable Gimp tutorial, but I refuse to link to sites that you can't use at all if you don't activate javascript. You can google for it if you're interested.

#

Re:Oookay...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2003 03:53 AM
"Answer: as long as there is absolutely no Open Source equivalent of Photoshop . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."

See GIMP, jackass (whoops, but as long as I have spiraled into name calling did I mention jackass?).

#

Re:Oookay...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2003 03:56 AM
you call GIMP *equivalent* to Photoshop? Come on!!

#

Re:Oookay...

Posted by: Hapless Hero on December 13, 2003 04:53 AM
it's not bad. i have no use for photoshop; in my eyes, the GIMP is better.

Course, I am somewhat biased, because the interface is what i'm used to!

#

No nasty talk about my favourite ......

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2003 05:15 AM
I've never used photoshop, and I do not miss it for I was "brought up" using the gimp.
Althought I am not a profi; the profi's are always pointing me to things i have an "equivilant" for so I never felt the need for photoshop....
but if you feel the need to support photoshop then you use it all you want (as long as you paid for it), I really don't mind.
BUT(T): Don't you talk nasty things about my favourite image manipulation tool (that I do mind).

everybody loves the GIMP!
(except:Anonymous Reader on 2003.12.12 14:56 (#81558))

#

Re:Oookay...

Posted by: Jonathan Bartlett on December 13, 2003 03:57 AM
Actually, most printers these days will accept RGB. However, they usually like samples, too, to verify the look.

#

No Open Source equivalent to Photoshop

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2003 08:58 AM
Hmm strange I use gimp a lot under windows and linux note under windows I run gimp to use Photoshop plugins. I will leave windows once Photoshop plugins run under linux. The mass scripting of gimp without requiring to load the graphics can save a lot of time ie not graphic envorment but 100 diff webpage buttons being produced. CMYK is a new standard but gimp will get it the question is do you really need it.

#

can you convience Mac-users also?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2003 02:54 AM
I ma happy to read about this progres which I fully support (I am a 100% Linux user, totally opposed to proprietary solutions), but I have to tell you that I doubt that most Mac users are willing to see at things the way you do. First - they "fear" Linux as (alledgedly) "too complicated" (they did not turn to Mac for no reason - most of them found Windoze "too complicated") and second, they are real "culties" who truly, sincerely believe that Mac users "think different". Finally, since OSX they have talked themselves into believing that OSX has all the advantages of Mac and Linux combined (I know - that's an absurd statement- but that's whay *they* think). Finally - is it not a fact that there are sill no Linux equivalents of pagemaker and photoshop?

#

Newspaper publishing using linux based apps

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2003 02:55 AM
This company is using linux extensively for newspaper publishing around the world:
http://www.newspapersystems.com/top/index.html

Old article when they first started porting their apps to linux:
http://www.newsandtech.com/issues/1999/03-99/nt/0<nobr>3<wbr></nobr> -99_linux.htm

#

Re:Newspaper publishing using linux based apps

Posted by: Randall McFarlane on December 13, 2003 03:11 AM
http://www.newsandtech.com/issues/1999/03-99/nt/0<nobr>3<wbr></nobr> -99_linux.htm

The address he/she tried to post had an extra space in the address
Its a interesting article thats Anoymouns

#

I almost agree completely

Posted by: Jonathan Bartlett on December 13, 2003 03:55 AM
Great article. The only thing that I would add is that color management includes a component that simply CANNOT be duplicated by RGB - specialized inks.

With other color systems, you can specify metallic inks - i.e. - inks with different reflective properties than normal inks. You can use other types of inks as well.

CMYK color systems are better able to handle this, because they are based on the properties of ink mixing.

With RGB, there really isn't any way to specify a metallic ink.

#

16bit support not there!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2003 04:18 AM
Sorry, but Linux is not good for PRO protographers yet. There is no 16bit per channel support on Gimp 1.3.x and it won't be for that new version, according to its maintainer. That's a huge blow for photographers.
CinePaint has added 16bit support but that app is not specialized in photography anymore, we would need a Gimp with 16bit support!!

#

Re:16bit support not there!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2003 09:11 PM
Don't know how current/alive this effort is, but do you mean something like this? http://film.gimp.org/

#

Re:16bit support not there!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 13, 2003 11:32 PM
CinePaint is the new name of filmgimp!!!
http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/

#

Newsforge needs a print this article button

Posted by: Fonze on December 14, 2003 07:45 AM
Or a single page view button on the front page.



Put the print button on page 2 of multiple page articles so you don't get upset over lower page views/ad views.



Better yet, include both buttons.



This is an important feature that Newsforge has omitted.

#

Re:needs a print button ... but there is ALREADY

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2003 06:59 AM
I believe you should be able to see a "print" button on all NewsForge articles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

The button (a small printer icon) is located in the title section of the article at the END of the line that contains the date and time. The DATE line is the line after the TITLE line and before the TOPICS line. The author's name is the last line in the section.

The format of the "printed" nicely includes a "fully qualified" list of the URLs referenced in the article.

There is also a button for email the article.

#

Re:but there is ALREADY...if you view graphic$

Posted by: Fonze on December 16, 2003 08:14 AM
Well, I guess that it should come to no surprise that if you don't view images (ad$), then as part of the punishment, you can't get a single page view.



Putting non-graphic hyperlinks to print/single page view should be a no-brainer (at the 2nd page...), but Newsforge went through a whole site redesign specifically to boost ad views.



This is unfortunate, as I'd hazard a guess in saying that FOSS users are more likely to use browsers that don't support graphics, and have images turned off. Not everyone, but a sizeable proportion compared to the general population.



Google, TvGuide, some news sites, and other high volume sites have found away to get advertisements onto non-graphical browsers. So should Newsforge, instead of shooting for higher page views, reader be damned.



I'll stop here because last time I criticised the site, "someone" modded me down as a troll, and that limited my comments to 2 per day, and put my signed in posts on the same level as ACs.



So I'll just say, the site is wonderfull! Yes!

#

GIMP does indeed have CMYK support

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 14, 2003 09:01 AM
GIMP does have support for CMYK in their 1.3 version.

#

Article

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 15, 2003 12:39 PM
First, i dont care how you customize the Macintosh. There is no way that Mac is going to cost $50,000 dollars. 50,000 Peso's maybe but I doubt the author lives in Mexico. Gimp has no 16 bit color support that a pro photographer needs. I cannot believe the author even made the comment on Scribus. Scribus may be good for newsletters and other lightweight publication needs, but to satisfy the needs of a professional publisher Scribus just does not, and will not cut it. I doubt this guy is a pro.

#

Re:Article

Posted by: mkone on December 15, 2003 08:34 PM
He said it cost that much during "GULF WAR I"!!!! (ONE!!!!). At least read the damn article.

Or should I add, RTFA.

And all those features are not always necessary. The point is, you can do without them and still produce a high quality publication. Actually, a lot of those features are the direct result of people who use such apps wanting them. So if someone decides 16 bit support is necessary, thye will write it and voilla, it will be there.

#

Anyone producing product labeling with linux?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 16, 2003 09:10 AM
If anyone is producing product labels, such as labels for jars or cans, or for plastic containers, please post some info.



Information on printing labels using commodity hardware and free software, very preferably with gnu/linux as the underlying operating system would really be appreciated.



Interested in low volume production, such as purchasing labels on 1000 label rolls or sheet stock with one or more colors (or nothing) pre-printed (such as non-changing info-company name, address, etc.), and adding upc and specific product name/ingredients using a color laser printer or inkjet with ink that doesn't run, etc.



Info on what exact free software apps you use for printing the labels, where/what to look for on labels, etc.

#

Re:Anyone producing product labeling with linux?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 21, 2003 04:12 AM
Glabels - solid & simple

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya