Raster Images convert to objects?

[grandcanyonplanet]

In the old days (15years ago) we scanned a lot of files to DXB, and simply imported the image into the .DWG as small objects. (I believe they were treated as polyline segments). The lines from the original scan became a series of small polyline segments (not joined) but the scanned image plotted as good as the original, and even better, the objects could be erased and a "hybrid" drawing created without xrefs or "embedded" raster files. You could manipulate the scanned objects with normal autocad commands, and they existed on Layer 7.

 

Now, I am forced to Import a TIFF and "embed" the object (if I want it to be a permenant part of the drawing), and edit it with seperate programs like Raster Design.

 

QUESTION: does anyone know how to convert a "embedded raster image" into a DXB image?

The scanner used to do the work for me and save the image as DXB.

It was not a "vectorization progrqam", but the raster lines became small (not joined) polyline segments in the process.

 

I don't want to "vectorize" with a seperate program, because then it just "traces" with a zero-width polyline.

The old scanner used to save to DXB, now I don't even see that as an option.

 

Any words of wisdom about creating a "scan" that can become "objects" (even small dots) INSIDE the DWG file, instead of a "Raster Image" that has to be xref'ed or "embedded", and will not even plot to a DXB or HPGL format?

 

Thanks for ANY help!

 

I have mostly TIFF files that I would like to "convert" to DXB, and not have to re-scan them.

I hate that the Raster file is treated as a seperate xref or "embedded" Raster Image.

 

I KNOW we used to scan directly to DXB and bring in the objects with the DXBIN command!

 

HELP!

[RobDraw]

I think your confused about vectorizing. Those "scanned in" polylines were vector based by definition of the word. If you were not getting a vectorized drawing, you would only be able to use the raster editing tools on it.

 

It sounds like that scanner was quite the machine. Do you remember what kind it was?

 

AFAIK, the only way to do what you are describing is with vectorization software. There are a number of them out there, some better than others for various reasons. Describe in more detail what you have and what you want to get out of it and maybe someone that has done similar work can recommend one for you.

[rkmcswain]

See also:

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/AutoCAD-2010-2011-2012-DWG/Raster-Images-convert-to-objects/td-p/4362148

[SLW210]

Raster Design is supposed to work with the scanned images right in AutoCAD, have you given it a try?

 

The scanning to .dxb was a function provided by the scanner, not Autodesk. Maybe contact that company.

[grandcanyonplanet]

Raster Design is supposed to work with the scanned images right in AutoCAD, have you given it a try?

 

The scanning to .dxb was a function provided by the scanner, not Autodesk. Maybe contact that company.

 

Yeah, Raster Design does (most of) what I want, but I used to be able to do the same thing with the normal autocad tools with entities that were truely PART of the drawing file itself.

And 100% compatibility with anyone who had autocad. No special plug-ins or external files. They could make changes with normal tools.

 

DXBIN, and done.

 

Not everyone has Raster Design, and not all the viewing and review programs will recognize the current "embedded" Raster Image.

 

For maximum compatibility it was nice to have the scanned data exist as short polyline segments that matched the width of the original linework.

Yes, the scanner DID create "micro-vectors" when it created the DXB file. Even text existed as a bunch of short polyline segments (with WIDTH!).

 

I currently have so many TIFF files that I would LOVE a conversion from TIFF to DXB that keeps the actual linewidths of the (sometimes handdrawn) original scans.

 

Instead they all seem to "vectorizing" it all with a "trace the centerline" zero-width polyline. TOO MUCH cleanup, and it's almosty easier to just redraw from scratch.

 

My goal is to be able to create "hybrid" drawings that keep the original linework exactly as it is (as entities on an internal DWG layer), but be able to "hybrid" small sections/renovations with normal autocad tools. The current Raster Image often isn't readable my many viewing and plotting softwares. Even autocad won't always plot the Raster Image part of the drawing to certain output formats.

 

Very disappointed that autocad and the scanner manufacturers have kinda gotten away from DXB and standardized on the TIFF and PDF formats, which get treated as something you can "view" as a background image, but not edit with normal autocad tools. That's great for realistic background presentations, but doesn't help much for normal monochrome technical line drawings.

 

How many people have Raster Design tools? I get better vectorization (centerline trace) with some freeware.

 

The old DXB files were perfect for using the scans in a "hybrid" file way. Now it appears that when you "vectorize" it creates zero-width polylines, and you lose all your line widths...leaving LOTS of clean-up work!

[RobDraw]

On the other hand, as you probably know, a properly drawn AutoCAD drawing does not use polylines for general lineweights. I'd like to see just one of those magical DXB's. I doubt they were actually as good as remember them. I'd be willing to bet that there were noticeable variations in polyline widths where there shouldn't be any. If the technology was so good back then, it would surely be better by now. That is just the nature of technology. I think that the constant stream of new posts that come in here asking about conversion software without ever getting any real good solution are testament to that. I work for a pretty large company and we don't have any vectorization software. We do rely fairly heavily on recreating drawings from paper and it is all done by tracing inserted TIFF files or just plain redrawing the plans as if they were a mark-up.

[f700es]

Yeah, no offense but I think your memory is in error. A dxb is not a scanned format. It is a drawing exchange binary, something similar to a dxf file. I agree with others in that a raster-to-vector program was used for the final vector file. Perhaps there was one on this machine. Years ago the company I worked for bought a scanner that had a RTV program with it. DXB was one of the formats it could save the converted file to. It would be nice to see one and look at it in detail.

 

http://www.autodesk.com/techpubs/autocad/acadr14/dxf/dxb_files_al_u05_b.htm

 

Welcome to CADTutor btw

[grandcanyonplanet]

On the other hand, as you probably know, a properly drawn AutoCAD drawing does not use polylines for general lineweights. I'd like to see just one of those magical DXB's. I doubt they were actually as good as remember them. I'd be willing to bet that there were noticeable variations in polyline widths where there shouldn't be any. If the technology was so good back then, it would surely be better by now. That is just the nature of technology.

That's pretty funny. So, according to your expertise a "proper" autocad drawing doesn't use polyline widths for lineweights. Hmmm, I wonder why they allow polylines to have a widthfactor then?

 

I imagine you use (what?) different colors to represent line weights in your drawing as if you were still choosing different pens on a pen plotter.

 

I have used Polyline widths for lineweights for over 25years, and the beauty of that is that the drawing looks the same on the screen (has "punch") as it does on paper, AND colors are now freed up to serve the engineer to represent systems (elec, mech, etc)...instead of serving the CAD department's plotting scheme. Or, are you using the lineweight assignments where you have to worry about what scale you plot the drawing. My way (using polyline widths) always scales up/down with the drawing. But, I like things simple.

[grandcanyonplanet]

Yeah, no offense but I think your memory is in error. A dxb is not a scanned format. It is a drawing exchange binary, something similar to a dxf file. I agree with others in that a raster-to-vector program was used for the final vector file. Perhaps there was one on this machine. Years ago the company I worked for bought a scanner that had a RTV program with it. DXB was one of the formats it could save the converted file to. It would be nice to see one and look at it in detail.

 

http://www.autodesk.com/techpubs/autocad/acadr14/dxf/dxb_files_al_u05_b.htm

 

Welcome to CADTutor btw

Thank you, F700es!

 

No, I looked at the drawings again yesterday, and what was happening was that the scanner had a built in software that scanned to a DXB format. Since DXB is a vector only format it DID DO some basic "vectorization" when it created the scan file. It turned the "raster image" into what I call "micro-vectors" which were short segments of polylines. Even the text (like the letter "s") for example, was a series of short polylines. So, it wasn't a "true" vectorizing software that "traced" the centerline with a single zero-width polyline, but it did create a series of small polyline segments that acurately represented the original scan (including linewidths!) very well. It was the PERFECT solution to creating "hybrid" drawings that were 100% internal to the DWG file (no hyperlink/OLE issues...just polylines on layer 7). So ANYONE with AutoCAD or related reviewing software was "compatible" with the file.

 

Yes, as someone mentioned "change" is the nature of technology...but it's not -always- for the better. Unless you are using your TIFFs as a "pretty" background image for an architectural presentation, then yes...TIFF is great for that. But, I'm pretty disappointed that the technology has "lost" the scan to (micro-vector) DXB capability...because it sure worked perfectly for 100% compatible to everyone "Hybrid" drawings that didn't require "tracing" (software or manualy) or even much cleanup work at all.

 

So, again I have to ask the experts if anyone knows of a TIFF to DXB conversion that captures the linewidths instead of this crappy "trace the centerline" vectorization method that Raster Design uses. Yes, I'm also familier with the "outline" method that uses TWO lines to trace/capture the linewidth, and that's not a valid solution either. I'm looking for a conversion to SINGLE polylines that preserves the linewidths of the original scan. The way our scanner USED to do it.

 

HELP!

Edited August 13, 2013 by grandcanyonplanet

[RobDraw]

That's pretty funny. So, according to your expertise a "proper" autocad drawing doesn't use polyline widths for lineweights. Hmmm, I wonder why they allow polylines to have a widthfactor then?

 

I imagine you use (what?) different colors to represent line weights in your drawing as if you were still choosing different pens on a pen plotter.

 

I have used Polyline widths for lineweights for over 25years, and the beauty of that is that the drawing looks the same on the screen (has "punch") as it does on paper, AND colors are now freed up to serve the engineer to represent systems (elec, mech, etc)...instead of serving the CAD department's plotting scheme. Or, are you using the lineweight assignments where you have to worry about what scale you plot the drawing. My way (using polyline widths) always scales up/down with the drawing. But, I like things simple.

 

Funny? That is exactly the way most of us plot. Polylines with width are used for exceptions to the assigned plot styles. Your method may work for you but I would be the one laughing if I ever received one of your drawings.

[f700es]

Do you recall what brand scanner it was? That sounds like a cool way to do it honestly. Sounds like an on-board OCR type thing then. Huh, learn something new everyday

 

Sean

[f700es]

Let's keep it civil guys. Just another way of working as I see it. As long as a drawing does not have exploded dims and hatches I am OK with it

[rkmcswain]

Polylines with width are used for exceptions to the assigned plot styles.

 

Agreed. And even more rare exceptions since the introduction of lineweights, I would guess.

 

We deal with worse here though. Like "leaders" whose arrowhead is actually a SOLID, massive sheet full paragraphs of TEXT (yes TEXT, not MTEXT), etc. etc.

I deal with some drawings like this occasionally where it appears the drawing author is stuck with the R12 command set.... :-(

[RobDraw]

Some of that can be attributed to files that have been exported from other software and legacy files but yeah, some of it just baffles me and it comes from "professional" firms.

[grandcanyonplanet]

Do you recall what brand scanner it was? That sounds like a cool way to do it honestly. Sounds like an on-board OCR type thing then. Huh, learn something new everyday

 

Sean

Thanks Sean.

 

It allowed the use of the so-called "raster image" (often a hand drawn ink-on-mylar original, with nice clean Leroy lettering) to be scanned directly into autocad as polylines, and emailed/copied/electronically archived...and USED as a Hybrid file immediatly, with very little cleanup.

 

The "hybrid" files were more than adequate as-builts that could be used (as-is) with any renovations simply being done on a seperate layer (where the original scanned linework was erased, and with normal tools).

 

I believe the scanner was an old Contex, and it created the scan as a DXB file that came into Autocad as a simple DXBIN, and resulted in polylines exactly as the original scanned linework. PERFECT usable hybrid files without the time spent to "vecorize" and "clean-up" the linework, as long as the original "handwork" (usually pen-on-mylar) work was good enough for the rennovation work required.

 

It's sad to see that that option has gone away in favor of the embedded TIFF file (and it's incompatibilities with some CAD/review software). And it's also sad to hear some opinions that a polyline is not accepted practice, compared to lines being assigned a linewidth by color or layer or whatever. I like the simple use of polylines (with width) without all the complications of linewidth "settings".

 

As I get OLDER, I have learned to appreciate the value of "What You See is What You Get"...in MANY areas of life...not just AutoCAD.

 

The use of Polylines with widths and colors assigned per the system/makes it a drawing with much more "punch" and visually informative...to the system designer/engineer...and NOT have to fiddle-___ with various CAD settings just to make it "complicated" enough to justify the existance of a CAD Technician.

 

But, I came here with a valid question about conversion/vectorizing software, and instead got various answers about my workflow being "propper" or "correct".

Comical.

 

Thank you, f700es, for at least seeing the value in a WYSIWYG drawing, as well as the value of a "Hybrid" file that's 100% autocad compatible (without plug-ins or external software) and doesn't require manhours of "clean-up" work.

 

Time to check the scanner software, and see if I can track down what USED to work so well.

 

Cheers!

[f700es]

We just bought a new plotter/copier/scanner here and it is set to PDF by default. For us this is better than a tiff file.

 

For WYSIWYG I set my layout tabs to display the plot style. Again just another way of working. To each their own

[RobDraw]

I'm sorry, I thought you had a stronger CAD background and understood how to use plot styles. BTW, there is a way to assign lineweights other than by color and those lineweights can be displayed so you WYSIWYG. But I'm guessing it's too late for an apology or to look at alternative methods.

[grandcanyonplanet]

I'm sorry, I thought you had a stronger CAD background and understood how to use plot styles. BTW, there is a way to assign lineweights other than by color and those lineweights can be displayed so you WYSIWYG. But I'm guessing it's too late for an apology or to look at alternative methods.

 

(EDITED: for civility per Cad64.)

 

 

 

 

I'm familier with plot styles and assigned lineweights...but choose not to do it that way. I like the simplicity and straightforwardness (WYSIWYG) of my way. And the way the drawings have "punch" on-screen as well as on paper...very useful to the designer/engineer/technician. Especially useful as we go "paperless" and start viewing drawings on iPADS. But, maybe it's different than your community college taught as being "proper". But thanks. Your "help" is much appreciated. It's all good.

 

Perhaps we can focus on the original question?

Edited August 14, 2013 by grandcanyonplanet

[rkmcswain]

....Perhaps we can focus on the original question?

 

Between the ~45 messages in the three forums that I am aware of, I think we have all come to the conclusion that unless you dig up this old scanner/software combo, you're out of luck.

 

Maybe someone will come along with knowledge of a new 3rd party "Paper2DXB" hardware/software combo, but I wouldn't hold out for it. I suppose if there is enough demand for such an item, a supplier will pop up though.

So is this a new task that you have to do now, that did not exist for the past 15 years?

What I'm driving at is what have you been doing about this for the past 15 years?

What started this query this week?

 

Cheers....

[Cad64]

A moderator has already requested civility in this thread, which was ignored. Any further inflammatory comments and this thread will be closed.