Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: Re: st: RTF issues.
Austin Nichols <email@example.com>
Re: st: Re: st: RTF issues.
Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:18:19 -0500
Jeph Herrin <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
You can use -png2rtf- (SSC) to write out automated files in RTF format
with a .doc extension that Windows users can double-click and see
images of a fixed size. Might take some trial and error with height()
and width() options on -graph export- and -png2rtf- before you get an
example that looks good to you.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Jeph Herrin <email@example.com> wrote:
> Rebecca, Billy -
> Thanks for the tips.
> The current context is that I want to generate reports; 1600 of them, every
> month, each containing data specific to one of 1600 hospitals. Thus, I
> require a totally automated solution. Moreover, the original contractor who
> was going to do this pulled out with only a few weeks notice (a few weeks
> which included the end of year holidays) and I volunteered to do what I
> could, since I do maintain the various datasets. What I knew about RTF was
> that I could write it out as text files and Adobe would convert 1600 files
> to PDF all at once. In addition, there's the questionable advantage that one
> can export a Word file as RTF and insert the text directly into the
> generated reports to achieve various images and effects that might take days
> to work out otherwise. It's actually not a terrible solution, except for the
> image size problem.
> Still, I think if I had to do it again - and had a bit more lead time - I
> would move to LaTeX, having been a heavy TeX user a few decades ago. RTF had
> the immediate advantage that the various parties that need to sign off on
> the reports could mark up the RTF versions (in Word, alas) and send them
> back to me.
> Otherwise, I agree with Roger and Billy regarding the value of MS Office
> products, and MS Word in particular.
> On 1/9/2013 12:30 PM, William Buchanan wrote:
>> I would assume that if anyone was going to change the platform they plan
>> on using they might choose instead to move to LaTeX. Several users have
>> already contributed programs that would allow someone to manage their entire
>> document workflow in LaTeX via Stata (e.g., can add necessary commands in
>> LaTeX to insert/resize graphics, tables, text, etc...). I agree with Roger
>> on the position of the use of MS products.
>> However, the other solution would be to use some VBA Script to call a
>> macro that would reshape things automatically in the documents; this still
>> doesn't solve the problem during import, but it is at least a little time
>> On Jan 9, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Rebecca Pope wrote:
>>> Jeph & Roger,
>>> I can't answer the question about fixing the size of the graphic in
>>> RTF, but I can offer solutions to the enforced use of MS Word as a
>>> precursor to obtaining a PDF and to Word altering the import size of
>>> 1. My husband is a tech writer & he introduced me to Scribus (open
>>> source alternative to Adobe InDesign, which to be fair I should also
>>> mention as an option) to make PDFs. If you are composing your text in
>>> Word, it can be copied directly into Scribus & then you can add your
>>> graphics there. Indeed, you can compose in any text editor or even in
>>> Scribus itself. Thus, you can bypass Word altogether if you want.
>>> Scribus imports graphics with whatever dimensions you've saved them
>>> but you can edit freely after that. You'll get better results in terms
>>> of resolution with the .eps files Roger mentioned.
>>> 2. If you are working entirely within MS Word and you want to
>>> constrain the size of the graphic before you import it, you need to
>>> insert a "drawing canvas" that is the dimensions of the existing file
>>> and then "fill" that canvas with your picture rather than importing
>>> the picture. I'm not sure that is any better than just importing the
>>> graphic and changing the size ex post. The one major advantage that I
>>> see is that you can put the canvas in as a place holder while you are
>>> adding your text and then insert the images after you've composed the
>>> text. My experience with MS Word is that it is rather crash-prone if
>>> you are moving text around with a large number of images. Either
>>> method will give you poor resolution because of the format of the
>>> graphic you are constrained to.
>>> Hope this helps,
>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Jeph Herrin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> I always archive figures in GPH format, but I will see how .eps looks
>>>> compared to .emf; I find .tif and .png to have poorer resolution when
>>>> embedded, at least when converted to PDF, for some reason.
>>>> On 1/7/2013 4:03 PM, Roger B. Newson wrote:
>>>>> Now you mention it, this is something I too would like to know. I
>>>>> personally tend to use the .eps format, but the code generated by
>>>>> -rtflink- does not preserve the specified sizes for that, either. The
>>>>> only recommendation I can think of is that, in general, the definitive
>>>>> version of a graph should NEVER be in a Microsoft proprietary format. I
>>>>> personally view all Microsoft documents as ephemeral things, which I
>>>>> only produce because my non-technical customers want them.
* For searches and help try: