|
|
Export PDF (as in vector art not rasterised image) from QCI always though the Kineme PDF Renderer patch was for exporting not importing until I just tried to use it the other week. Now I keep finding reasons to desire a plug in that can translated point and line structures into a PDF based on the Viewer Window Perspective. (Other 3D objects like cubes, quads & spheres would be great too ;) ) Obviously one can snapshot or render in Quartz Crystal to a TIFF but I'd like to be able to grab art-work of points and lines and use them in Illustrator as vector artwork ie. lines (line structure)and circles (point structure). This would allow some 3D QC magic inside (pretty much) 2D Illustrator. I can't think of another way to do this unless one can export to a 3D file then import in a 3D app then print to PDF to get the paths in 2D. I just made a double helix quickly in QC but tracing it off in Adobe Illustrator is boring, especially if I want to change the perspective.
|
That sounds a bit difficult, yes. Even auto-trace after the fact would be imprecise.
Have you seen NodeBox? the upcoming version 2 uses a patch environment + python scripting, and can export vectors, rasters or movies. Some of your QC skill set might carry over.
http://nodebox.net/code/index.php/shared_2009-02-02-09-44-09
Yeah I check in with nodebox site and processing just to see what people are doing. It's just for time and that initial learning curve of little result for lot of effort. QC prob took me 3 months of on/off use with a few hardcore dusk-till-dawn sessions (glad the obsessive phase has worn off with QC!) to get comfortable with it.
I love some of the aesthetics that people are getting with nodebox and it could be the more logical choice for geometry related tasks, you are correct about that. Just need the time to make a good start on it. And then there is processing…
As a noob to QC, I would love to see the comp that you made to generate the double helix. Would you mind posting it?
Cheers,
Chris
Here's a double helix tutorial from GOTO10: http://www.vimeo.com/4847806
Back almost on topic: I'm still avoiding coding, but nodebox looks great. Would I be correct in assuming it's easier/less involved than Processing?
Well, the version 2 (which is in beta and I haven't tried) is a nodal / graph programming environment, which processing isn't. Aside from that, in my humble opinion, Python is a tad friendlier to non-programmers than Java is. Processing's error messages look downright scary.
I haven't checked to see whether the patches will be as granular as QC's, or if it'll mainly be bigger blocks. In that case, I'd say it's more of a hybrid system where you need to cook up the Python blocks yourself - or persuade someone familiar with both Python and QC to implement the QC standard library.
Anyway, it looks like a fun tool, and two things could mean it will quickly pick up more of a following than QC has: One, IIRC It originated in academia (so has research funded and teaching as an aim), and two, they're going cross-platform. Both of which mean more tutorials and ways of getting help.
We'll see soon I guess.
ETA: Just checked it out, and from the few docs that are there, it looks like the nodes are very basic. On the level of individual Illustrator tool operations. That's excellent news if you want to use the nodes only.
Presumably they'll have some more advanced in the mix, too, or the ability to make macros.