Feel free to search all your favorite desktop publishing and graphic design topics here ...
or anywhere on the web. Simply select the appropriate button below.

Re: Image Composer vs. PhotoDraw 2000

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Microsoft Image Composer Talk ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Ulysses on February 19, 1999 at 11:57:55:

In Reply to: Re: Image Composer vs. PhotoDraw 2000 posted by Greg Edwards on December 28, 1998 at 10:09:56:

: I have tried PhotoDraw 2000, and I find its features to be superior--yet similar--to those of Image Composer.

Greg -

PD bears some similarities to its cousin program, Image Composer. This is because they are based upon the same sprite technology. Picture It is also based upon the same. They have as their initial designer the same Dr. Alvy Ray Smith, who now works for MS.

PD has in its backbone a superior graphics engine. But where it misses the boat is that it hides a lot of its function from the user. PD can do a few tricks, such as 3D text. But that is one of the few things that it does that IC cannot do easily on its own.

In nearly every other function I find IC1.5 to be superior not only with the quality of output but also in overall capability. Have a look at the page at http://www.pioneeris.net/ashton/IC/gallery.htm Most of those graphics used zero input from plug-ins, and I seriously doubt that PD could produce anything close to most of them. It just doesn't give you the tools to do it.

You can't, for example, get any two sprites to interact with one another or have one sprite's properties effect another in PD. In IC this is a basic function that comes in so handy for realistic effects.

It's not that PD doesn't have the underlying ability to do it. But in MS's desire to simplify everything for users (wizards, one-button solutions, etc.) they've taken away control. PD is the most glaring example of this that I've seen in a while.

While I like templates and wizards, I would still like to be able to have access to some simple-to-use but powerful tools such as I find in IC.

I appreciate that PD is aimed towards a certain crowd who do not have the time to investigate a more enabling program such as IC1.5. At the same time, to trade away features as was done with PD is just plain sad.

Image Composer Tips, Techniques, and Help Site

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : I have tried PhotoDraw 2000, and I find its features to be superior--yet similar--to those of Image Composer. : Greg - : PD bears some similarities to its cousin program, Image Composer. This is because they are based upon the same sprite technology. Picture It is also based upon the same. They have as their initial designer the same Dr. Alvy Ray Smith, who now works for MS. : PD has in its backbone a superior graphics engine. But where it misses the boat is that it hides a lot of its function from the user. PD can do a few tricks, such as 3D text. But that is one of the few things that it does that IC cannot do easily on its own. : In nearly every other function I find IC1.5 to be superior not only with the quality of output but also in overall capability. Have a look at the page at http://www.pioneeris.net/ashton/IC/gallery.htm Most of those graphics used zero input from plug-ins, and I seriously doubt that PD could produce anything close to most of them. It just doesn't give you the tools to do it. : You can't, for example, get any two sprites to interact with one another or have one sprite's properties effect another in PD. In IC this is a basic function that comes in so handy for realistic effects. : It's not that PD doesn't have the underlying ability to do it. But in MS's desire to simplify everything for users (wizards, one-button solutions, etc.) they've taken away control. PD is the most glaring example of this that I've seen in a while. : While I like templates and wizards, I would still like to be able to have access to some simple-to-use but powerful tools such as I find in IC. : I appreciate that PD is aimed towards a certain crowd who do not have the time to investigate a more enabling program such as IC1.5. At the same time, to trade away features as was done with PD is just plain sad.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Microsoft Image Composer Talk ] [ FAQ ]

Feel free to search the entire desktopPublishing.com site ...
or anywhere on the web. Select the appropriate button below.