Orienteering NZ Wiki

On the Naseby relay map the lines that are diagonal with respect to the page edges are very jaggy. It's most easily seen on the road edge lines along the southern border, but more importantly it affects the clarity of the contours.

I've had a look at the other maps from the weekend (under a magnifier) and jaggies are barely noticeable. Likewise a test print of the Naseby map I did at Hutt Valley's printer. I wonder what was different with the relay map printing. Whatever it was, we need to avoid it particularly in places like Naseby.

<snipped from post in Printing General>

3. The Naseby East map from Easter on waterproof paper clearly has fuzzier definition than the other three maps. It's not just the contours but also knolls, pits and the yellow dots in symbol 402, but it's the contours that orienteers notice. I look through an 8x magnifier. On the Naseby map for rough open (and in fact all symbols) the dot matrix seems to consist of dense rows of dots at an angle of about 30 degrees from vertical. On the other 3 maps the angle seems to be 45 degrees. So was the Naseby map done on a different printer? Was it a different version of OCAD? Please DOC keep us informed.

<snipped from post in Printing General>

Any word on why Naseby was different? Regardless of the paper, we are pushing the boundaries of digital printing, when the specification is designed for offset. So we must ensure we get the very best that digital can deliver.

I asked Brian about that, he didn't notice anything wrong with the map

brian's eyesight must be getting like his body (like mine) wearing out

All I know is that it was the same printer and the planning side of it would have been done on OCAD 8 (the same as the other days). What verson was used for mapping Michael would know

Michael Wood said: “One aspect of interest is the colour brightness. While there are many variables, I happen to have a Naseby map printed by DOC's printer on synthetic paper and also by OHV and WOC's printer on standard paper, I think its 100gsm Colortec. The colours on the synthetic paper are not as bright as those on the standard paper. (This may have led some competitors to mistake medium green for light green or at any rate to not treat it with the respect it deserves:-)) ”

1. It seems a quality paper like ColorTec will always be whiter than a waterproof paper. I guess we might have to work out colour adjustments in OCAD to suit each printer and paper. Then you need the IOF printed Test Sheet 2006 (see http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/print-tech/index.html ) but if you really want to compare colours you have to get the official IOF printed copy.

2. The Australians have done a bit of work on colour adjustments to suit specific printers and Ken Dowling has detailed data on how to define OCAD colours for off-set printing.

3. The Naseby East map from Easter on waterproof paper clearly has fuzzier definition than the other three maps. It's not just the contours but also knolls, pits and the yellow dots in symbol 402, but it's the contours that orienteers notice. I look through an 8x magnifier. On the Naseby map for rough open (and in fact all symbols) the dot matrix seems to consist of dense rows of dots at an angle of about 30 degrees from vertical. On the other 3 maps the angle seems to be 45 degrees. So was the Naseby map done on a different printer? Was it a different version of OCAD? Please DOC keep us informed.

From Brian: This was the same paper we used at the World Masters in Auss last year, I was so impressed that i got John to source some Teslin 115. He did all the rest. I would have to check cost, can get back to you, earlier in the piece looked like 50-60 cents per sheet. With a few mistakes, we used 2000 sheets (some maps reprinted due to planner error). Very happy with the results, helped immensely that we could cut to sze, in several cases A4 was a little small for the size of map.

Here is my reply from John (our club printer

1: Paper was Teslin 115 gsm 2: It is imported by BJ Ball but it comes in large sheets ( about 8 A4 sheets) and you have to cut these to size.Price is dependant on volume purchased. 3: Was printed on a xerox 1251 and a xerox 700 digital press.

Thanks S'man. The short list looks like Teslin and Pretex. Here's a non-technical question for anyone who was at the nationals. Did you get any mud (unlikely I know) or blood on your map and if so was it possible to wipe off? Staining is an issue with some papers.

Any word on why Naseby was different? Regardless of the paper, we are pushing the boundaries of digital printing, when the specification is designed for offset. So we must ensure we get the very best that digital can deliver.

I asked Brian about that, he didn't notice anything wrong with the map

brian's eyesight must be getting like his body (like mine) wearing out

All I know is that it was the same printer and the planning side of it would have been done on OCAD 8 (the same as the other days). What verson was used for mapping Michael would know

I think the relay was planned using OCAD10(CS?) Unless OCAD10 is any different to OCAD8 in terms of printing/exporting…the relay map files were generated as PDF as oppossed to EPS files for the other maps. I have found that PDF's are often not as sharp in terms of printing quality but the only way to send the files out effectively to a printer is to print them as a pdf rather than export them as a eps. Maybe there is some other way to do this I dont know about?

DOC doesn't have OCAD 10 yet which is why I said OCAD8. The maps being a PDF would probably explain the differance

Thanks guys, here's a summary of the great Fuzzby mystery. I can say that it was delivered as requested as an OCAD 8 file. But so was Foxy Roxy and presumably The Grapes of Wrath and The Butcher. Then, perhaps, it went into OCAD 10 course planning (whereas the others were OCAD 8 course planning - confirm?). Then it was sent to the printer as a pdf (whereas the others would have had to be via eps as OCAD 8 can't do pdfs).

Tane suspects pdfs are not as sharp as eps's. I had heard some tales of oddities in which pdfs are implicated, so I did some tests when I started using them. I have been completely satisfied, and there are minimal jaggies on a Naseby test print I got at my regular printer.

So… could it be the way OCAD 10 course setting handles things cf OCAD 8? I've just done a little test and examined the resulting pdf in Acrobat. 6400% zoom and I can't see any jaggies, so it must still be in vector form at this point. The pdf then goes to the print house.

So are we left with some mysterious difference within the software at the print house - dealing with pdfs differently from eps's? Or finally just that the operator sent it to a different printer (machine)?

Sprint, Middle and Long planned on OCAD8, Base map OCAD8, eps files. Relay planned on OCAD10 (CS), Base map OCAD8, pdf files.

Dunedin does not have or use condes nor does it have OCAD10 but the planner of the relay has a copy (possibly a demo copy?)

As far as I am aware all map files were printed at the same printer and I assume on the same printing machine

Also OCAD8 cant export as pdf's but it can print files as pdf's

re condes, i must see an optomitrist about my eyesight as i thought i saw it on the descriptions, my bad. actually i didn't completely like the print result for humpty bumpty because the contours were too light compared with the nice printing colours and sharpness of bannockburn.

The Fuzzby mystery: the course planner advises:

The Relays maps were printed by someone other than our usual printer man and on a different printer from all the other Nationals maps. John had a printer breakdown during the week before the Nationals and, in order to meet deadlines, he subcontracted my batch out.

Seems highly likely this was the reason. Might be unavoidable in an emergency, but shows a need to check any new printing service under a magnifier before depending on it.

Ahhh jumped the gun there, apologies to John the printer and his subcontractor, the Naseby problem occurred BEFORE the pdf files got to you. The course planner has sent me one of the actual pdfs for the relays and in Acrobat on high magnification (a) the control descriptions and course markings look fine (b) the map looks terrible. So must be something in the way his particular version of OCAD 10 course setting opens the map file or passes it on to the pdf when it exports.

I've been through the process with the map as delivered (version 8.00) and OCAD course setting (version 10.2.4) and it produces a pdf that looks fine under high magnification. Can't do any more than flag that there's a possible problem here. Easily checked before sending the pdf away.

We never got to the bottom of “the great fuzzby problem” at Naseby. In this, OCAD 10 was used for course planning, output was to pdf, and at high magnification in Acrobat reader the map was clearly dotty whereas the course markings were perfect. The discussion is spread over pages 23-25 or so in the Mapping thread.