Re: filename to bitmap
Re: filename to bitmap
- Subject: Re: filename to bitmap
- From: Paul Skinner <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:01:43 -0400
on 10/16/01 4:34 PM, Brennan wrote:
>
has <email@hidden> wrote
>
>
> Photoshop's Actions are just dumb macros: record and run... and run... and
>
> run. No variables, control statements, subroutines, etc: it's no 'scripting
>
> language'. There's been times when I've recorded quite complex actions but
>
> would have killed for a simple if...then statement.
>
>
Well, even being able to get something like the width or color depth of the
>
image into the filename (a completely linear task) is impossible. I once
>
worked on a website where somebody had had the dumb idea of having the width
>
and height of every image as part of the filename as a naming convention.
>
Every time an image was modified so that it changed size, you had to modify
>
the filename and the html code. Of course, nobody on the team had any
>
scripting chops, and photoshop couldn't do it either. Total nightmare.
The horror. The horror.
Snip
>
BTW, I had occasion to play with Photoscripter the other day. The dictionary
>
looks fantastic and surprisingly thorough, but in practice, it seemed not to
>
behave how I expected. I really didn't give it enough time, though. Is there a
>
serious review (i.e. written by and for Applescript-savvy people) of
>
Photoscripter online anywhere? Any comments from people on this list?
It is difficult to make something incomprehensibly complex as PhotoShop
scriptable. Think of some of the dialogs that allow for the customization of
an action in dozens of ways, and then think of the command structure
required to duplicate that functionality in a script. Whew!
I am amazed that they did it at all. Sometimes the commands can become
very complex, they are not well documented and few examples exist. I have
heard 'I think that you are the first person to try to do that' more than
once in response to questions I've posted regarding a command. The net
result is that PhotoScripter is 'Terra Incognita' to some extent. There is
also the issue with updates, or lack thereof while PhotoShop marches on. And
some of the functionality of PS is just not implemented.
I think that PhotoScripter is fabulous in the power that it exposes to
AppleScript. It is the core of most of my scripts and it is absolutely
critical to the company that I work for. But I have reason to doubt that
there will ever be a new version. And since X is here to stay, I suspect
that the day will come when I have to find a new solution.
Some of PhotoScripter's commands will also behave in unexpected ways
when you are trying to meet a deadline. This may be a function of
PhotoScripter or it may be implemented at a low level in AppleScript itself
as I have seen it occur with simple code if the deadline is important
enough. ; )
>
I'm really surprised they don't post the photoscripter dictionary on the
>
mainevent website. I am sure it would increase sales, and perhaps bring the
>
price down a bit. Right now it's like buying a pig in a poke, especially
>
considering there are so many non-pork* applescript implementations out there.
>
The price would make your hair stand on end. You're supposed to spend $299
>
just to _evaluate_ the software? I'm shocked!
>
-Brennan
Cal and MainEvent have mysterious ways. : )
--
Paul Skinner