Jump to content

 
Photo

Looking for opinions on MAPublisher

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#16
frax

frax

    Hall of Fame

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,320 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stockholm, Sweden
  • Interests:music, hiking, friends, nature, photography, traveling. and maps!
  • Sweden

I have the export setting set to 30 000 - not because it has any specific meaning, just as an arbitrary high number to capture the full resolution of the GIS dataset, and to avoid any generalization.

See this note for instructions on how to avoid strips/banding:
http://support.esri....l...how&d=29950
Hugo Ahlenius
Nordpil - custom maps and GIS
http://nordpil.com/
Twitter

#17
Martin Gamache

Martin Gamache

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:History of Topographic Cartography
    Topographic Mapping
    History of Relief Depiction
    Thematic Cartography
    Demographic Cartography
    Cartographic techniques, methods, and tools
    Orienteering
    Panoramic & Kite Photography
  • United States

Out of interest what do you use as 'ridicoulous,' am I right that 10000dpi is the max? and does anyone else follow the multiple of 72 guide that I do?


1440 seems to work for me. I also use this as my vector resolution setting when exporting Manifold Layouts.

#18
pfyfield

pfyfield

    Master Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • United States

It took me a while to figure out that the DPI setting affected the vector exports too. You can set DPI high and use multiples of 72 (ESRI's advice), but it still moves points.

That's not my only complaint about ArcMap ai exports. ESRI keeps adding what they refer to as "advanced cartographic techniques," but with little regard to the resulting export. Transparency is the obvious example but there are many more.

For me, 100% of my maps need to end up in Adobe format, so it makes sense to use their software for the final product. I love MAPublisher because it allows me to do a larger percentage on my work in Illustrator, after I've done my projecting/clipping/dissolving/other geoprocessing work in ArcMap.

One trick I've learned- drag your neatline into the map view and export it as a shapefile. Then use that (or maybe a slight buffer) to clip your data in ArcMap. It also helps in centering your data on the page back in Illustrator.
Paul Fyfield
Cartographer, Bureau of Land Management
Oregon State Office
Portland, Oregon
pfyfield@blm.gov

#19
Martin Gamache

Martin Gamache

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:History of Topographic Cartography
    Topographic Mapping
    History of Relief Depiction
    Thematic Cartography
    Demographic Cartography
    Cartographic techniques, methods, and tools
    Orienteering
    Panoramic & Kite Photography
  • United States

For me, 100% of my maps need to end up in Adobe format, so it makes sense to use their software for the final product. I love MAPublisher because it allows me to do a larger percentage on my work in Illustrator, after I've done my projecting/clipping/dissolving/other geoprocessing work in ArcMap.


It is still not clear to me what advantage Mapublisher gives you in this case. Is it just a fliter to get your vectors into Illustrator? And you also have Arcmap around which can also export to illustrator. I would have a hard time justifying that purchase.

#20
rudy

rudy

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Canada

In defence of ArcMap, I would like to say that since version 8 has come out its cartographic capabilities have much improved. Before that time my cartographic workflow required export from ArcView to a graphics package where the maps were then enhanced. I no longer feel the need to do that - it adds an unnecessary step to the process that slows things down and complicated matters. 95% or more of my output needs I can accomplish in ArcMap. The remaining 5% or so may require significant editing; in that case the project is better finished in a graphics package. Even that number is declining.

Getting back to the original question about whether MaPublisher is worth it - it all depends on your needs (frequency, size of data sets, how you want your maps to look, etc.) and your budget (ArcGIS being pricey however you slice it).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

-->