




Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:34:27 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Ten Thousand Cranes

I know this is very belated, but I hope I'm not too late to add a few pieces
of information on this subject

As has already been said, cranes in Japan (and also, I believe in some other
countries) are a symbol of long life, and consequently of prosperity and good
fortune.
But  the real, living crane is actually a long-lived bird.. There have been
records of the Japanese Crane living for eighty or more years in captivity,
and while it is unlikely that this would be equalled in the wild, they still
live for a very long time. Incidentally, what an exceptionally beautiful bird
the Japanese Crane is. Fortunately it is now protected and its numbers,
according to the last report I read are increasing significantly.

The main rival of the cane as a symbol of long life in Japan is the turtle or
tortoise. We all know that the giant tortoises on various isolated islands in
the oceans live  extraordinarliy long lifetimes -well over one hundred years
and perhaps two hundred: records don't always go back far enough to be sure.
Whereas in Japan the crane is supposed to live for  one thousand years, the
tortoise is attributed with ten thousand years. The crane and the tortoise
are often represented together against the background of a Horaizan, a
mountain representing a utopian land of perrennial youth and immortality.
Isao Honda gives a paper-folded version in his book on Noshi. His version is
in the form of a wrapper to contain gifts such as of money at times of
celebration, such as at weddings.

Why a thousand - why ten thousand? Obviously, in the first place, because
they are large numbers. But why multiples of ten? Again, because we have ten
figures and since primaeval times have learnt to count in tens .Hence the
decimal system.

But ten is an awkwrd number: it divides only by two and five, which isn't
particularly helpful. Perhaps it would have been better if we had been
designed to have six fingures on each hand. Then we would be counting in
twelves. Twelve can be divided by two, three, four and six, which would be
much more useful. Let's all join the duodecimalists!

Of course, in practice, conversion to counting in twelves would be
impossible: the decimal system is much too entenched. The change would be
even more difficult than fixing the date of Easter or changing the QWERTYUOP
typewriter keyboard which was not designed for speed of use, but to prevent
the early typewriter levers from jamming together. Even now, although we use
computers that don't have levers, we're still stuck, but now with an
inefficient system.

Cranes have only four "fingers" on each foot, so presumably they count in
eights!

David Lister

Grimsby, England

D.Lister891AOL.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:39:02 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: The Pajarita and Words for Folding Paper

As always, I come in late, but I can add one or two further snippets to this
subject.

"Papiroflexia" is the usual term for paperfolding in Hispanic countries.
However, notwithstanding  that it is the equivalent of "Papierfalten" in
German or "Paperfolding" in English, it is a fairly recent word, having been
invented by Dr. Vicente Solorzano Sagredo of Argentina, probably sometime
around 1910. Dr. Solorzano was fond of inventing new words and they included
"deltoids", "deltoidology" and "papirola".

But what word did the Spanish use for folding paper before "Papiroflexia"?
Vicente Palacios of Barcelona told me that  the Spanish would talk of "making
pajaritas". They would use this expression whether the actual model they were
folding was an actual  pajarita or not. From this the word "pajarita" came to
be applied not just to the funny little bird which we all know as the
pajarita, but also to any paperfolded model. Consequently, the word
"pajarita" in Spanish usage may refer to models which are not the familiar
bird, and it is necessary to exercise caution when reading the word in old
records.

Although the pajarita/cocotte/hobby-horse/dragon is generally considered to
be a western fold, because, like most early western folds, it is made from
the Windmill Base, it is also traditional in Japan, where it is known as a
dog ("inu"). Yoshizawa suggests that this was copied in the West. Vicente
Palacios insists that the pajarita originated in Spain. Who is right?

I have mentioned the fairly recent invention of the word "papiroflexia" and
compared it with "papierfalten" and "paperfolding".Surprising as it may seem,
neither of those words, themsewlves, is particularly ancient. They seem to
have originated as a result of the use of paperfolding in the Froebel
Kindergarten, and because that originated in Germany, "papierfalten" came
first. It is difficult to date, but around 187O would not be far off. As
German Froebelian works were translated into English, so "paper folding" was
the natural; translation. Before Froebel and his followers adopted folding
paper as a basis for teaching kinderarten children, there was no concept of
paperfolding as a seprate activity. It was no more than - folding paper, or
making unrelated paper toys. Without the concept, there was no call for a
special word.

Neither "Paper-folding" nor "Paperfolding" appears in the first edition of
the Oxford English Dictionary of 1928. (The section containing words
beginning with P came out about twenty years earlier.) Of course, "paper" and
"folding" are long-standing English words and their combination to make
first, "paper folding" and later to hyphenate the two words as
"paper-folding" is a natural process in the language, so the particular date
"paper-folding" became an established word is indeterminable. Possibly 1880
would be about the time "paper-folding" as a word became estqablished in
English. I admit, however that I am writing according to my recollection and
not after recent research.

Now "paper-folding" is evolving into "paperfolding" without the hyphen. It is
the form I myself prefer. How long before the OED recognises the change?

Talk about twittering pajaritas!

David Lister

Grimsby, England.

D.Lister891AOL.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:46:56 -0300 (ADT)
From: marckrsh@nyc.pipeline.com (Marc Kirschenbaum)
Subject: Re: eps, ps -> pdf?

On Jul 12, 1996 16:30:17, 'Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>' wrote:

>Just out of curiousity, why would one want
>to convert a PDF file to PS?
>(Given that Acrobat can print the PDF file
>on any supported graphics printer?)
>

My guess would be that for high end graphics shops, PS is the language of
choice for the imagesetters used there. Virtually all of the high end
graphics packages produce PS code, so this makes sence. Perhaps PDF might
take the place of PS, but for now in publishing, PS seems to dominate.

Marc





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:27:22 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Peter Coppen!!

Peter Mielke <psmielke@utcc.utoronto.ca> sez

>Peter Koppen folds paperboats.

He sure does! I met this wonderful (and unusual - he has half his head
shaved and the alternate half of his chin shaved as well - the result is
most confusing!) him at Berlin - he creates art both large & small
composed entirely of the trad ship with a sail (as in the "Captain's
shirt" tale.  These he folds (by hand alone) from paper 5mm across.

You can buy a small book about him & his work from the Origami
Deutschland Supplies section.

all the best,

Nick Robinson
nick@homelink.demon.co.uk

                           ***  Origami Deutschland!   ***





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 04:09:23 -0300 (ADT)
From: stiller@symmetry.xo.com
Subject: Peacock Montroll help...

[Re Montroll, Origami for the Enthusiast peacock]
Lewis>Anyway, my main question is how to do the sinks on step 20 and 26.

Jerry>         The ones on Step 20 are fairly easy, but the ones on Step 26 are
Jerry> quite difficult to do cleanly.  Both sinks are open on the distal (far)
     end
Jerry> of the tail, but are closed sinks on the proximal (near) end.  (IMHO,
     this
Jerry> doesn't constitute a sink; it's a closed reverse fold.)  It's nigh
Jerry> impossible to get the sinks in both steps to follow the crisp horizontal
Jerry> fold lines that they're diagrammed with on the proximal ends, so if you
Jerry> have to be messy and just "jam" the paper inwards on the proximal ends,
     you
Jerry> can still get a satisfactory model (since the area in question isn't in
Jerry> view in the end result).

Thanks for the help, but I am afraid I am still having a bit of
trouble. (Also I don't want to jam it since I want to understand fully
what is going on in that fold).

Suppose we were to unfold the paper after step 26. We would get
something that looks like this ( not drawn to scale).

   Head and Body                            TAIL
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                               |      Upper quarter of tail  |
|                               |                        |
|                               |                        |
|                                |                             |
|                             |-----------------------------|
|                             |                    |
|                             |                    |
|                             |                    |
|                                |                          |
|                             |                    |
|                             |      Middle half of tail    |
|                         |                           |
|                             |             |
|                             |                    |
|                             |                    |
|                             |                    |
|                             |-----------------------------|
|                             |                          |
|                             |                             |
|                             |                          |
|                             |       Bottom quarter of tail|
|                             |                             |
|                             |                    |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------

The crease diagrams of the upper and bottom quarters of the tail are shown
in the diagram at step 25.

My question: What is the crease diagram for the middle half of the tail?





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 10:53:11 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Jan POlish....

  ------- Forwarded message follows -------

> Hi Nick,

> have you any luck in getting Jan Polish's correct address? Have tried
> that one again and again it is not recognised.

> bestist

> Joan Homewood

Anyone out there help Joan? (101450.3722@CompuServe.COM)

Cheers, Nick





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 11:14:47 -0300 (ADT)
From: frr@opal.cs.brown.edu
Subject: Re: eps, ps -> pdf?

Valerie Vann wrote:
>
> Just out of curiousity, why would one want
> to convert a PDF file to PS?
> (Given that Acrobat can print the PDF file
> on any supported graphics printer?)

Most UNIX, Macintosh, and multiplatform laser printers are PostScript-
based, and documents in PS format can be downloaded directly to those
printers with no modifications, generally with a utility that takes up
less than 100K of disk space and launches in about five seconds.  (BTW,
diagrams printed in this manner on a 600 dpi laser printer are of equal
or better quality than those found in actual origami books.) Acrobat
Reader takes up several megabytes of disk space, uses gobs of memory,
takes forever to launch, and, on many machines, requires that SuperATM
be installed, leaving the door open to potential conflicts with other
software.

On UNIX boxes with Display PostScript (Silicon Graphics, Sun, and NeXT,
among others), the PostScript viewers which come bundled with the OS are
compact and launch quickly, due to the fact that all of the actual
rasterizing software is so tightly integrated into the operating system.
On these machines, the PostScript viewers often load and display pages
significantly faster than Acrobat Reader does.
                                    - Fred





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 15:43:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Ten Thousand Cranes

D. Lister writes:

<< Cranes have only four "fingers" on each foot, so presumably they count in
<< eights!

So the cranes are one up on most humans: they're using one of the **other**
firmly entrenched counting systems: octal (along with hexadecimal, a dialect
of binary....)

Once again, David, thanks for you're historical insights!

Since you're on AOL, David, are you planning a "History of Origami"
Web Site?  :-)

--valerie
Valerie Vann
75070.304@compuserve.com
valerivann@aol.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 15:43:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: eps, ps -> pdf?

Fred writes:

<< Most UNIX, Macintosh, and multiplatform laser printers are PostScript-
<< based, and documents in PS format can be downloaded directly to those
<< printers with no modifications, generally with a utility that takes up
<< less than 100K of disk space and launches in about five seconds.

I once asked in a MAC support forum on Compuserve whether there was a
way to "dump" a postscript file from a MAC to a PS printer without
opening the file in a program. Nobody knew. I'm glad to hear that it
*IS* possible; DOS PCs (PC's without Windows) have always been able to do
this. In fact there are 2 ways, both built into the operating system,
requiring NO additional disk space, and launching immediately. :-)

<< diagrams printed in this manner on a 600 dpi laser printer are of equal
<< or better quality than those found in actual origami books

Weelll, I don't know about equal to publication quality (usually done at
1000dpi or better), but it's true that 600dpi is plenty good enough
for sharp diagrams. Acrobat, as far as I can tell, prints Postscript
files that were made using a 600dpi printer driver with no loss of
resolution or information. However, if a higher resolution driver
is used for files with tones or photos, you would get a loss of detail
by printing on a 600dpi device.

<< Acrobat Reader takes up several megabytes of disk space, uses gobs of memory,
<< takes forever to launch

All true, but "several MB of disk" is currently required on PCs to store
your email signature; major aps like MSOffice can occupy 60-80MB+. On my PC,
the current version of Acrobat Reader occupies less than 3MBytes, including
the plug-ins and help files. It takes 3 seconds to open the PDF file for
Joseph Wu's armadillo for viewing, and part of that is because I'm a slow
mouse-clicker.

<< on many machines, requires that SuperATM
<< be installed, leaving the door open to potential conflicts with other
<< software.

ATM (Adobe Type Manager) has seemed to be the cause of a number on problems
in the past on many PCs I work with (I'm the office computer support
person). After installation of Acrobat with ATM on one machine recently,
odd things started to happen (corrupted screen fonts). Adobe support
suggested I simple unintall ATM and run Acrobat without it. The problems
went away, and I haven't missed it, since the PDF files we're using
are primarily vector graphics (output of CAD programs, in which all
the text/fonts are "drawn") or bitmapped graphics (photos, scans, etc.).
The text or DTP files are using the common TrueType or Postscript
printer fonts, and display and print just fine without ATM.

<< On UNIX boxes with Display PostScript (Silicon Graphics, Sun, and NeXT,
<< among others), the PostScript viewers which come bundled with the OS are
<< compact and launch quickly, due to the fact that all of the actual
<< rasterizing software is so tightly integrated into the operating system.
<< On these machines, the PostScript viewers often load and display pages
<< significantly faster than Acrobat Reader does.

OK, if all you're trying to do is look at and/or print the file.
However, we're using Acrobat for its additional capabilities. The
current versions of the Acrobat programs for creating PDF files
(Exchange, Distiller, Catalog) can assemble a composite (multipage)
PDF file from many sources, add pages later, create thumbnail
navigation aids, hyperlinks to both other documents and Web locations,
play movies, etc. Text can be indexed for full search capability.
More features are under development. So PDFs can provide a format
which is available cross-platform, usable on line, with easy hardcopy
output. Acrobat "ain't just a viewer" anymore.

--valerie
Valerie Vann
75070.304@compuserve.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 22:49:39 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Working in FreeHand

Robert -

        Hi!  I've been spending some of my free time (and even some of my
not-so-free time) diagramming my recently invented _Stegosaurus_ for public
consumption.  As you've probably seen, I've been in the habit of
diagramming using Aldus (now Macromedia) FreeHand -- I'm still on the old
version 3.1.  My original diagrams in the program were bulky (as seen in
some of the FOCA-cum-OUSA _Annual Collections_, but I've refined my
technique to more closely match the ones you have produced.  As references,
I've been following your articles on diagramming from some of the older
issues of "The Newsletter."  The diagrams are, at the risk of boasting,
quite good, except for two things:

<1>  My valley fold lines, perhaps inevitably, don't exactly meet the
borders in the diagrams.  You discussed this in your aforementioned
articles, and, like you, I greatly prefer to have them do so.
Unfortunately, my borders always seem to land right where the gaps between
the dashes of the valley fold line fall, and so while one end of the line
meets the edge, the other one rarely does.  I know that you were involved
in tweaking FreeHand with some PostScript programming, something with which
I have no experience, and I'm guessing that you have used some of this
programming to make the lines all meet.  I was wondering if I might
persuade you to teach me how to tweak FreeHand to make the valley lines
always meet the borders?

<2>  For mountain fold lines, I've been using the preprogrammed "long
dash-short dash-short dash" line option in FreeHand.  This is fine, but I
still prefer a "long dash-dot-dot" system, which is a bit clearer and more
traditional.  I've noticed that both you and John Montroll have gotten
FreeHand to produce nice "long dash-dot-dot" lines systematically; am I
correct in assuming that you have somehow defined a new line in FreeHand?
Again, this is something I've been unsuccessful at achieving, and any
advice you could provide me on how to make these lines would be greatly
appreciated!

        Many, many thanks in advance for any information you can provide!

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  (214) 768-2701
Southern Methodist University         jdharris@post.smu.edu
Box 750395                            (CompuServe:  73132,3372)
Dallas  TX  75275-0395

"Tyrannosaurs, though rarely seen, are certainly still around.
And no one knows just where or when the next one will be found."

                                  -- Calvin (aka Bill Watterson)
                                    .    .
                              .-_  /:\  /'\ .
                             /'''\/:::\/'''/:\
                         .---_'''/:::::\''/:::\----.
 .  .            .    .  \::: \''\:::::/''\:::/'__/_ .
 \\_\\_       /\/:\/\/:\/ \_:::\__\---/----\_/'/ :::/
  \ \\_\______\_\_/\/\_/\__\\_/    o  o  o  \_/::::/ ___ .
   \___\__________              o           o    \//''''/
                  \______     o                o   \''_/   _----_
                        \__  /     '            o  \/:\  / ....-/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 00:09:47 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Re: Peacock Montroll help...

>Suppose we were to unfold the paper after step 26. We would get
>something that looks like this ( not drawn to scale).
>
>
>   Head and Body                            TAIL
>|--------------------------------|-----------------------------|
>|                                |      Upper quarter of tail  |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |-----------------------------|
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |      Middle half of tail    |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |-----------------------------|
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |       Bottom quarter of tail|
>|                                |                             |
>|                                |                             |
>|--------------------------------|------------------------------
>
>
>The crease diagrams of the upper and bottom quarters of the tail are shown
>in the diagram at step 25.
>
>My question: What is the crease diagram for the middle half of the tail?

        To facilitate my answer, I have folded a sample of the model and
unfolded it to view the "crease diagram."  (Technically, this would be
called a "folding map.")

        Ultimately, the folding map for the "middle half" will be identical
to the top & bottom quarters.  That is to say, if you were to fold the
entire model and then unfold the entire model, the folding map of the
"middle half" would contain to patterns, each virtually identical to the
top & bottom quarters (thus, for the entire tail end of the body, there
will be 4 consecutive identical patterns).

        However, you will note that I said "virtually."  There are a couple
of additional and autochthonous creases in the "middle half."  In
particular, there is a continuous (vertical) valley fold that connects the
two parallel patterns in the "middle half."  This fold connects the apeces
of the tiny rearward-pointing triangles that are nested at the proximal
(towards the head) ends of the innermost rectangles of the folding pattern
(you can see these in the center-left of the folding patterns of the top &
bottom quarters to which you refer in Step 25.  (I realize that this
sentence probably sounds exceedingly confusing, but I recommend that you
print it out and read it slowly next to the diagrams and locate these
reference points.)  This valley fold is formed by the folding backwards of
a larger, forward-pointing triangle whose apex is the center of the paper
and whose two rearward points are the apeces of the tiny triangles
mentioned earlier.  This larger triangle is the one hidden beneath the
spread-squash (spread-sink) in Steps 11 & 12.  It is the presence of this
triangle, coupled with the additional overlying layers valley folded in
Step 19 that make the sinks in Step 26 very difficult (if not impossible)
to do cleanly.  They interfere with the vertical folds marking the proximal
ends of the rectangles (the ones between the diagonal fold lines in the
folding maps to which you refer in the top & bottom quarters of Step 25).

        Unless you're really fastidious, everything I've just said probably
won't make a heckuva lot of sense.  8-(  If you wish, I'd be happy to send
you a completed model which you can reverse-engineer to see the folds
firsthand.  This is a particularly difficult set of folds to describe
verbally!  I hope this helps a little...

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  (214) 768-2701
Southern Methodist University         jdharris@post.smu.edu
Box 750395                            (CompuServe:  73132,3372)
Dallas  TX  75275-0395

"Tyrannosaurs, though rarely seen, are certainly still around.
And no one knows just where or when the next one will be found."

                                  -- Calvin (aka Bill Watterson)
                                    .    .
                              .-_  /:\  /'\ .
                             /'''\/:::\/'''/:\
                         .---_'''/:::::\''/:::\----.
 .  .            .    .  \::: \''\:::::/''\:::/'__/_ .
 \\_\\_       /\/:\/\/:\/ \_:::\__\---/----\_/'/ :::/
  \ \\_\______\_\_/\/\_/\__\\_/    o  o  o  \_/::::/ ___ .
   \___\__________              o           o    \//''''/
                  \______     o                o   \''_/   _----_
                        \__  /     '            o  \/:\  / ....-/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 00:10:21 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Re: Working in FreeHand

Oops!!!

        My apologies to everyone on the list:  the original of this message
was intended for Robert Lang, but I inadvertently sent it to the list!  I'm
so very sorry to all, and especially Mr. Lang for this screw-up on my
behalf!

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  (214) 768-2701
Southern Methodist University         jdharris@post.smu.edu
Box 750395                            (CompuServe:  73132,3372)
Dallas  TX  75275-0395

"Tyrannosaurs, though rarely seen, are certainly still around.
And no one knows just where or when the next one will be found."

                                  -- Calvin (aka Bill Watterson)
                                    .    .
                              .-_  /:\  /'\ .
                             /'''\/:::\/'''/:\
                         .---_'''/:::::\''/:::\----.
 .  .            .    .  \::: \''\:::::/''\:::/'__/_ .
 \\_\\_       /\/:\/\/:\/ \_:::\__\---/----\_/'/ :::/
  \ \\_\______\_\_/\/\_/\__\\_/    o  o  o  \_/::::/ ___ .
   \___\__________              o           o    \//''''/
                  \______     o                o   \''_/   _----_
                        \__  /     '            o  \/:\  / ....-/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 13:02:33 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Working in FreeHand

Jerry,

I'm not sorry you accidentally sent this to the
whole list: I, for one, would be very interested
to hear Dr. Lang's response. I also consider
discussions of diagramming techniques quite
appropriate to the list, and those not interested
can always skip the messages about it.

Valerie Vann
75070.304@compuserve.com
http:/users.aol.com/valerivann/index.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 22:10:39 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Re: Working in FreeHand

>Jerry,
>
>I'm not sorry you accidentally sent this to the
>whole list: I, for one, would be very interested
>to hear Dr. Lang's response. I also consider
>discussions of diagramming techniques quite
>appropriate to the list, and those not interested
>can always skip the messages about it.

        Well, in general, I agree with you.  However, as I had personalized
that particular letter, without saying explicitly who it was for, I felt
some people might have felt that they were seeing something "personal."  I
didn't want anyone to feel embarassed!

        As for diagramming, how many people out there (besides Robert and
John) are diagramming by computer?  What programs are you using?  (Anyone
else using FreeHand or an equivalent program?)  I'm interested in learning
of your techniques.  Here's a synopsis of how I do mine:  I've got a preset
grid (a computerized piece of graph paper, as it were) that I have set as a
"stationery pad" (that is, every time I open it, it gives me an untitled
grid on which I can draw new things without worrying that I'm going to
alter the original grid).  FreeHand allows one to specify on-screen (which
equate, when printed, to real-life) measurements (inches, cm, picas,
points, etc.)  I use points, and each square on my grid is 1x1 point.
(That's pretty large; it could easily be smaller.)  Thankfully, FreeHand
displays nice rulers with sliding markers on the top and side, so I can
always tell exactly where I am, which allows for very precise measurements,
and thus very nice-looking diagrams.  Best of all, when I'm done with each
page, I just select the grid and delete it, so the diagrams appear crisp
and nice but without my guidelines everywhere!  8-)

        For border lines (edges of paper and folded edges), I use a line
with a weight of 1.  For crease lines, I use a "hairline" (which turns out
to be a wieght of 0.25) colored at 75% black (=grey) (all other lines being
100% black).  FreeHand has preset line options of dashes (which I use for
valley folds), "long dash-short dash-short dash" (which I use for mountain
folds), and dotted (which I use for x-ray lines).  My (admittedly old)
version of FreeHand (3.1) allows for some preset arrows to be assigned to
any kind of line, but I don't use these, since none of them are really of
my particular version of the Randlett-Yoshizawa standard.  Instead, I have
a preset palette (to which I can switch at any time) of more appropriate
arrows I've drawn separately.  Then I can just cut 'n' paste the arrows
from that doc to the diagrams.  There, I can rotate, resize, elongate,
shorten, or alter in any way the individual arrow to suit the particular
diagram.  (Actually, I don't have only arrows; I also have the Lang-style
"eyeball-in-this-position" diagram, the "repeat Steps XX-YY here" box +
line, etc. for when I need them, too).  Obviously, for the white side of
the paper, I use a white fill (0% black), but for the shaded side I use a
25% black.  I find that 25% works very nicely: anything darker makes crease
lines, etc. more difficult to see, and anything lighter can become
difficult to view against the white background.

        I used to try and make my diagrams appear consecutively in rows
across the page, a technique I still prefer from a logistic point of view,
but for the diagrams I'm slowly doing for my "Stegosaurus," I've been
inspired to use the old Harbin-esque technique (which I see Kawasaki used
in his _Origami Fantasy_) of putting the diagrams in smooth, curvilinear
patterns across a double-page spread.  This pattern is underlain by a light
greyscale line (I'm using a 24 weight at 40% black) which the person can
follow.  It's not quite as neat as the rows, but it's charming in its own
way.  I'd like to know what people prefer, technique-wise; I can always
change them!  The non-rowed pattern is nice because it allows me to nestle
diagrams a bit closer together, but it makes placing step numbers and
verbal diagrams less systematic.  I think I've been successful at placing
them just so that there won't be any confusion as to which verbal diagrams
go with which picture, but it's something I try and be wary of using a
non-systematic layout.  Font-wise, I'm using a 10-point Helvetica for the
verbal diagrams and, I think, a 24-point Helvetica for the numbers.

        Anyway, I'm open to questions, comparisons, suggestions, etc. from
anyone listening to this conversationg.  Once I get these diagrams done
(it's very slow going! -- I'm already at Step 21 and only just now has the
initial precreasing been finished and the model begun to be collapsed!),
maybe I'll submit them somewhere; perhaps even to the list's ftp site.
They'd be a nice contrast to Joseph Wu's "One-fold Stegosaurus" there!  8-)

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  (214) 768-2701
Southern Methodist University         jdharris@post.smu.edu
Box 750395                            (CompuServe:  73132,3372)
Dallas  TX  75275-0395

"Tyrannosaurs, though rarely seen, are certainly still around.
And no one knows just where or when the next one will be found."

                                  -- Calvin (aka Bill Watterson)
                                    .    .
                              .-_  /:\  /'\ .
                             /'''\/:::\/'''/:\
                         .---_'''/:::::\''/:::\----.
 .  .            .    .  \::: \''\:::::/''\:::/'__/_ .
 \\_\\_       /\/:\/\/:\/ \_:::\__\---/----\_/'/ :::/
  \ \\_\______\_\_/\/\_/\__\\_/    o  o  o  \_/::::/ ___ .
   \___\__________              o           o    \//''''/
                  \______     o                o   \''_/   _----_
                        \__  /     '            o  \/:\  / ....-/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:29:29 -0300 (ADT)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Kawasaki's rose and Origami for the Connoisseur (OftC)

I had meant to reply to this much sooner, but I've been having e-mail
problems lately (hopefully everything's okay now).

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Valerie Vann wrote:

> Actually, I recall three versions of the "myth" or rumors about the
> OftC Kawasaki rose on the mail list:
>
> 1. That Kawasaki had disclaimed it in a conversation with someone.
>    I would have to research this in the back list traffic, but I
>    believe Tom Hull may have been the one who mentioned this, as
>    I had some exchanges (all friendly, BTW, and if I'm mistaken in
>    attributing this to Tom, I apologize).

This is the myth I was trying to debunk. I don't remember who had put it
forward, either, but I don't think it was Tom.

> 2. That the OftC DIAGRAMS are not correct, or not the way Kawasaki
>    did/does it; and/or have mistakes. In this regard, whether or not
>    the diagrams picture Kawasaki's method, I found it hard to believe
>    that the rose in OftC was misattributed, but I did note that the
>    diagrams are not quite right at the end for closing the underside
>    and making the fully blooming rose with the outer ring of petals
>    turned out, as pictured in OftC. I ended up modifying and rediagramming
>    the final procedures in order to get the roses to look like the photos.
>    This situation is entirely different, of course, than saying that the
>    model "is not Kawasaki"s Rose".

The diagrams in OftC are by Kasahara, but the rose is Kawasaki's design

> 3. I believe Tom Hull may also have said that Kawasaki actually makes
>    his roses differently, and/or has another style of rose.

Also partly true: Kawasaki has a newer rose design (which he taught at the
OUSA convention in '94) and I don't think he uses the old one any more.

> 4. The realistic Rose of OftC, and discussions thereof are constantly
>    confused here on the list (and elsewhere) with the Kawasaki Rose
>    Tessellation (Twist Fold) pictured in Jacksons Encyclopedia (EofOaPT)
>
>    The crystallization is a whole different thing. It is what I (and
>    others) have reverse engineered as no diagrams exist). Mine and another
>    solution appear in the list archives, and a more developed version of
>    mine with a photo are on my web page. As I have said on my diagrams,
>    I do not claim, nor am I sure, that my solution bears any resemblance
>    to Kawasaki's own method. All too often there are multiple solutions
>    for reverse engineering an origami model, especially highly geometric
>    ones, yielding identical end results. I've done this for three other
>    models in Jackson (Enigma, Proteus and Shen Dish), so I wouldn't be
>    surprised if the Rose Tessellation was another case.
>
>    I believe that Tom Hull was the source of information that there
>    is a Second Rose Tessellation, more complex, and reportedly "better".
>
> All of the above in the interest of accuracy: I don't think the art
> benefits by perpetuation of "myths" and rumors, and since I have been
> involved here in many of the discussions of both forms of "Kawasaki
> Rose" models, I would hope to avoid being involved in muddling up
> the picture any further than unfortunately it has become.

Thanks for the summary, Valerie!

Joseph Wu  <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>  <http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami>
Approach life like a voyage on a schooner. Enjoy the view. Explore the vessel.
Make friends with the Captain. Fish a little. And then get off when you get
Home.                                                     --Max Lucado





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 10:53:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: Kristine Tomlinson <ktomlinson@platinum.com>
Subject: Re: why 100 cranes

    Hi,

    As someone pointed out earlier, cranes (and tortoises) are
    traditionally thought to live 1000 years by both the Chinese and
    Japanese.  Cranes and tortoises are also symbols of immortality
    (Source: Chan:166).

    Because of this, I tend to see a(n unproved) connection between the
    belief in the benefits of folding 1000 cranes, and Taoist beliefs about
    immortals and the "merit system".

    Here's an illustration of the merit system from Ko Hung (284-363 AD)
    also known as Pao-p'u, Master Who Embraces Simplicity.  (Either the
    translation has a typo, or immortals have their own math.):

    "Those who aspire to be terrestrial immortals should accomplish 300
    good deeds and those who aspire to be celestial immortals should
    accomplish 1,200 [sic 2000?].  If the 1,999th good deed is followed by
    an evil one, they will lose all their accumulation and he will have to
    start over.  It does not matter whether the good deeds are great or the
    evil deed is small.  Even if they do no evil but talk about their good
    deeds and demand for their charities, they will nullify the goodness of
    those deeds although the other good deeds are not affected."  (Source:
    Chan:168-169)

    At least folding is a little more forgiving! :-}

    Source: Wing-Tsit Chan et al, The Great Asian Religions: an Anthology,
    New York Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., London: Collier Macmillan
    Publishers, 1969.

    Kristine
    ktomlinson@trinzic.com
    Waltham, MA, USA





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:31:53 -0300 (ADT)
From: Rjlang@aol.com
Subject: Re: Working in FreeHand, and results of ps->pdf

Valerie sez:

> I'm not sorry you accidentally sent this to the
> whole list: I, for one, would be very interested
> to hear Dr. Lang's response.

Okay, folks, here goes...

Hi Jerry (and listmembers),

Up until about two weeks ago, I, like Jerry, was still using Freehand 3.1,
which I have gotten to like a lot. But on my last book, I ran into some
incompatibilities working with a service bureau (the rest of the world has
upgraded a long time ago) and so I somewhat reluctantly upgraded to 5.5. In
the process, I gave up a few things I liked a lot, notably the "repeat
transformation" keystroke command (command-comma) and the ability to have a
visible grid of 0.1 inch (for some screwy reason, 5.5 won't let you make the
visible grid that small). However, because version 5.5. supports multipage
documents, I can put an entire model into a single (humonguous) file, which
is helpful for organization and for keeping styles consistent within a model.

Jerry sez, among other stuff,

>>>>
For mountain fold lines, I've been using the preprogrammed "long
dash-short dash-short dash" line option in FreeHand.  This is fine, but I
still prefer a "long dash-dot-dot" system, which is a bit clearer and more
traditional...
<<<<

There are two levels of improvement in origami lines available to you. The
first is the simplest. You can, in fact, edit the predefined dash patterns in
FreeHand to make (almost) anything you want. In the "Edit style" dialog, when
you select a dash pattern, hold down the option key while you click and
select a pattern; the "pattern editor" will come up for that particular
pattern, and you can edit the length of lines and spaces (and have up to 8 of
each, if I recall correctly). So that's how you can make a dash-dot-dot
mountain line. One other stupid restriction in FreeHand is that they won't
let you make the first segment in the pattern shorter than 1 pt. This is a
pain because the way you make round dots is to use a zero-length dash with
round end caps; so you can't make a line of perfectly round dots for x-ray
lines. (I haven't checked yet whether this restriction is in version 5.5.)

Now, that doesn't solve the problem of "always end on a dash." As you (Jerry)
heard, several years ago I wrote PostScript routines that subtly tweak the
dimensions of each line so that it always starts and stops on a full dash.
However, it's rather awkward. You need to convert all valley, mountain, and
xray folds to PostScript style and enter some PostScript code in the "Edit
Style" dialog; also, once you do this, on the screen, all your lines will
look alike and will be solid (they print properly, though). Since you can't
see what's a valley fold and what's a mountain fold on screen, it makes it
difficult to proof on-screen.

What I do is to initially draw the diagrams with regular dashed lines, and
then when I'm done and the drawings are proofed, change my style definitions
to the PostScript ones.

Anyhow, if you want to do something like that, you'll need to learn a bit of
PostScript programming. (If you haven't, it's a cool language; it's very
stack-based, so it's sorta like programming an HP calculator on steroids.)

Another trick you can use for straight lines is to draw it to the right
length, note where the last dash ends, shrink it slightly so that it ends on
a full dash, group it, and then enlarge the group (make sure "group
transforms as a unit" is checked) until it's the right length again. This
does essentially the same thing as the PostScript code, but you can actually
see the results on screen.

Good luck!

Robert J. Lang

P.S. Heck, while I'm on the subject of PostScript, I'll mention there are
other cool effects you can add to your origami diagrams with some Postscript
programming. A few years ago, a contingent of the origami community was up in
arms over the use of computers for diagramming, extolling the virtues of
wiggly hand-drawn lines in diagramming as being "friendlier" than crisp
computer-drawn lines. I also wrote some code that took origami PostScript
drawings and randomly perturbed all the lines by a set amount, adding a
precise amount of "wiggle" to each line, making them look more "hand-drawn."
However, the world seems to have gotten used to computer-drawn lines.

In the code, you could set the level of randomness and by bumping up the
setting, you could also make truly drunken-looking diagrams, which might be
perceived as "friendlier" to the pub-folding contingent <g>.

Also, by the way, since one also supplies a seed for the randomizing
routines, you could make each copy of your "wigglized" diagrams unique and
encrypt the recipient's identity in the random seed, thus providing a level
of copy protection and traceability for electronically-distributed diagrams!

Before I go entirely off the deep end here, let me mention I sent a sample
file with all of these Postscript effects to Charles Knuffke, who converted
them to pdf; although I fully expected them to break Distiller (they break
lots of other stuff, including the occasional Linotronic), they converted
perfectly.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:52:37 -0300 (ADT)
From: Gretchen Klotz <gren@agora.rdrop.com>
Subject: Portland (OR) Group Forming

Howdy -

In case there are any Portland-area lurkers out there that I haven't found
yet, I'm sending a list-wide announcement that we are starting a regular
folding group!  The first meeting will be next Sunday, July 21, 2-5pm.
Please email me privately for more information.

- Gretchen

--
gren@agora.rdrop.com         http://www.ogi.edu/~gren/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 13:30:21 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Re: Working in FreeHand, and results of ps->pdf

Robert et al -

        Robert ->  Thanks for your detailed response!  It has helped a
great deal, and I will probably play with some of your ideas tomorrow
(after yet another Human Anatomy exam!)  8-S

>Up until about two weeks ago, I, like Jerry, was still using Freehand 3.1,
>which I have gotten to like a lot. But on my last book, I ran into some
>incompatibilities working with a service bureau (the rest of the world has
>upgraded a long time ago) and so I somewhat reluctantly upgraded to 5.5. In
>the process, I gave up a few things I liked a lot, notably the "repeat
>transformation" keystroke command (command-comma) and the ability to have a
>visible grid of 0.1 inch (for some screwy reason, 5.5 won't let you make the
>visible grid that small). However, because version 5.5. supports multipage
>documents, I can put an entire model into a single (humonguous) file, which
>is helpful for organization and for keeping styles consistent within a model.

        I was (and still am, in many ways) afraid of upgrading for two
reasons:  I've become somewhat proficient in 3.1 (at least, enough to make
diagramming quickly, which is what I primarily use it for), and I'm unsure
of how much of my "training" in 3.1 will carry over to 5.5 -- I don't have
gobs of time to sit down and relearn a whole new program (especially one
with as steep a learning curve as FreeHand does).  Second, I'm not
currently available to shell out the absurd $150 Macromedia wants for an
upgrade.  (I can't fathom why there hasn't been a crackdown on computer
programs for the profiteering they display with upgrades).

>There are two levels of improvement in origami lines available to you. The
>first is the simplest. You can, in fact, edit the predefined dash patterns in
>FreeHand to make (almost) anything you want. In the "Edit style" dialog, when
>you select a dash pattern, hold down the option key while you click and
>select a pattern; the "pattern editor" will come up for that particular
>pattern, and you can edit the length of lines and spaces (and have up to 8 of
>each, if I recall correctly). So that's how you can make a dash-dot-dot
>mountain line.

        I hadn't tried this, and I don't even recall seeing it in the
instruction book.  I'll certainly give this a shot, and see if I can find
in the book, too.  Great tip -- thanks!  8-)

>One other stupid restriction in FreeHand is that they won't
>let you make the first segment in the pattern shorter than 1 pt. This is a
>pain because the way you make round dots is to use a zero-length dash with
>round end caps; so you can't make a line of perfectly round dots for x-ray
>lines. (I haven't checked yet whether this restriction is in version 5.5.)

        Well, even small, closely-spaced square dots would make me happy;
the preset FreeHand line I'm using is a series of very short dashes, which
could be confused with a valley fold line in a congested diagram.

>Now, that doesn't solve the problem of "always end on a dash." As you (Jerry)
>heard, several years ago I wrote PostScript routines that subtly tweak the
>dimensions of each line so that it always starts and stops on a full dash.
>However, it's rather awkward. You need to convert all valley, mountain, and
>xray folds to PostScript style and enter some PostScript code in the "Edit
>Style" dialog; also, once you do this, on the screen, all your lines will
>look alike and will be solid (they print properly, though). Since you can't
>see what's a valley fold and what's a mountain fold on screen, it makes it
>difficult to proof on-screen.
>
>What I do is to initially draw the diagrams with regular dashed lines, and
>then when I'm done and the drawings are proofed, change my style definitions
>to the PostScript ones.
>
>Anyhow, if you want to do something like that, you'll need to learn a bit of
>PostScript programming. (If you haven't, it's a cool language; it's very
>stack-based, so it's sorta like programming an HP calculator on steroids.)

        I can program very simple sequental formulae into my old HP 15C, as
well as a couple of games.  I haven't sat down to learn Postscript yet for
the same reasons I'm anxious about upgrading:  with all my studies, I
simply don't have the kind of time I'd like to devote to learning that sort
of thing right now...  8-(

>Another trick you can use for straight lines is to draw it to the right
>length, note where the last dash ends, shrink it slightly so that it ends on
>a full dash, group it, and then enlarge the group (make sure "group
>transforms as a unit" is checked) until it's the right length again. This
>does essentially the same thing as the PostScript code, but you can actually
>see the results on screen.

        In the interim between now and the undefined point in the future in
which I can learn some Postscript, I'll give this one a try.  Again, thanks
for some great tips!  8-)

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  (214) 768-2701
Southern Methodist University         jdharris@post.smu.edu
Box 750395                            (CompuServe:  73132,3372)
Dallas  TX  75275-0395

"Tyrannosaurs, though rarely seen, are certainly still around.
And no one knows just where or when the next one will be found."

                                  -- Calvin (aka Bill Watterson)
                                    .    .
                              .-_  / \  /'\ .
                             /'''\/:::\/'''/:\
                         .---_'''/:::::\''/:::\----.
 .  .            .    .  \::: \''\:::::/''\:::/'__/_ .
 \\_\\_       /\/:\/\/:\/ \_:::\__\---/----\_/'/ :::/
  \ \\_\______\_\_/\/\_/\__\\_/    o  o  o  \_/::::/ ___ .
   \___\__________              o           o    \//''''/
                  \______     o                o   \''_/   _----_
                        \__  /     '            o  \/:\  / ....-/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 13:40:49 -0300 (ADT)
From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@panther.middlebury.edu>
Subject: Re: Working in FreeHand

Thanks, Jerry, for your little introduction to diagramming in freehand.
Anyone else want to add to that? ;) I just acquired a copy of Freehand
5.0 for my Win95 machine, so I will be able to diagram my models finally.
I haven't started doing so yet, due to time constraints and the fact that
the program, with all its options, is very daunting. Maybe with the help
of your last message, I can start off on the right foot...

One point about Freehand relevant to another current thread -- you can't
save in PS format ... PDF, FH5 and TIF are the ones that come to mind.
Anyone have a plugin for freehand that will allow me to save in PS, or a
PDF to PS (or mebbe EPS to PS) converter for windows or DOS?

Alasdair
acpquinn@midd-unix.middlebury.edu





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 13:48:09 -0300 (ADT)
From: Penny Groom <penny@sector.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Ed Sullivan

I had a letter from Antoinette Peterse in  Holland last year asking for
the addresses of several folders so that she could write and ask for
permission for the OSN model committeeto publish some of their models.

Ed Sullivan was one of these. I wrote back and told her he had died a
few years ago. I had a letter today asking who has the copyright of his
models. I don't know if it's his widow( or indeed if she has moved house
since Ed died).

If anyone has any info that can help, please E-Mail me privately and let
me know

Thanks

penny@sector.demon.co.uk
>

------------------------------------------
Penny Groom                :(  Membership Secretary
                           :)  British Origami Society
penny@sector.demon.co.uk
Deputy Box Office Manager,Leicester Haymarket Theatre





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:17:12 -0300 (ADT)
From: JENEVOLD@aol.com
Subject: Re: string figures

Well, I have enjoyed string figures, but just to diverge a little further,
I've wondered a little about the connection between origami and another
pleasure of mine, bobbin lacemaking (string figures with a vengeance!). As
with origami, I tend to prefer the more geometrical patterns in lacemaking.

I was delighted with the recent post announcing the web pages on fabric
origami, partially because it led me to another list: the lace list! I'd
searched for lace discussions a few years ago and found nothing, but hadn't
checked recently.

Julie
jenevold@aol.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:20:30 -0300 (ADT)
From: GURKEWITZ@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU
Subject: RE: Chris Palmer speaks at AM96!

What day will Chris be presenting?





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:23:30 -0300 (ADT)
From: kevin !! <prank@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: RE: Postscript

Hello, all(!!)

        Most programs _do_, in fact generate PostScript output; instead of
printing to a printer, simply choose "Print to a file."  This will often
present you with a PostScript file save options window.
        As for printing these PostScript files...

        Most operating systems, be they Mac, PC, or workstation, will have
a printer utility which will upload (read "download") PostScript files.
Someone recently wrote that they could not find one on the Mac, but it's
there; it's called "LaserWriter Utility" and should be found in the "Apple
Extras" folder on System 7.x.
        Even niftier, many good word processors will allow you to load the
file in as text, then let you change the "type" of the file to PostScript,
which, when printed, will interpret the document as PostScript code
instead of as text.
        PostScript files created by a "Print to file" command on
the Mac can even be opened up in Simple Text, provided the creator and
file type are correct (I believe).

        I also use Freehand to diagram.  I tried using Illustrator, but
there doesn't seem to be a "create grid" or "snap to grid" function
available.  Does anyone out there who uses Illustrator know how to do this
easily?  The manual simple describes a method of laying down gridlines
manually (hence the term "manual") and using snap to point.  But what it
you want to switch between different grid accuracies?

--Kevin





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:33:37 -0300 (ADT)
From: bryan@sgl.ists.ca (Bryan Feir)
Subject: Re: Working in FreeHand

>         As for diagramming, how many people out there (besides Robert and
> John) are diagramming by computer?  What programs are you using?

   Hmmm... last time I did this (several months back) I used xfig, which
is a figure generation program for UNIX/X windows.  I had xfig export the
individual diagrams as Postscript files, then used LaTeX with the psfig
package to load the diagrams into place on a page.

   It's not for everyone, of course, but it worked for me.  Only problem
was that the version of xfig I was using was a bit old and couldn't draw
dot-dash lines, only pure dots or same-length dashes.  So I just wrote
out the dot-dash lines as straight dashes then editted the Postscript
file directly to change the length of the dashes in the lines.

---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Bryan Feir           VE7GBF|"Many a man in love with a dimple has made the
bryan@sgl.ists.ca          | mistake of marrying the whole girl."
                           |                          -- Stephen Leacock





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:38:27 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@leatherback.nist.gov>
Subject: Re: Working in FreeHand

At 01:40 PM 7/15/96 -0300, Alasdair wrote:

>One point about Freehand relevant to another current thread -- you can't
>save in PS format ... PDF, FH5 and TIF are the ones that come to mind.
>Anyone have a plugin for freehand that will allow me to save in PS, or a
>PDF to PS (or mebbe EPS to PS) converter for windows or DOS?

You can use any system supplied postscript printer driver to 'print'(should
be 'save') the file to postscript format (or eps). This applies for any
program which supports printing using window driver. You don't need a
plugin. I am sure this can be done for win95 as well (I am not a win95 user).
|--------------------------------------------------------------------\
|  _  Sy Chen <chens@iia.org or sychen@mailserver.nist.gov>          |\
| |_| Folding http://roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~sychen/origami/pprfld.htm --\
