Re: Getting quality screen shots for documentation

I don't understand how it could make a difference which 5250 emulator
you're using. Capturing an image from what's displayed on your screen
is a function of the capturing software, not the program that you're
trying to get a screenshot *of*.

If you have a raw image, and it looks good when you display it via an
image viewer, with no scaling, then it's a good image, and the
capturing software has done its job.

The fact that it looks good in one format suggests that degradation is
happening in converting to other formats. Meaning the problem is with
Flare.

If you used the exact same versions of Snagit and Flare when you were
making PDFs and Word documents containing Client Access screenshots as
you're using now, then I am guessing you're observing artifacts of
differences in font and resolution, not differences in 5250 emulator
software per se. And higher resolution isn't automatically better.

If you're tied to Flare, and it doesn't give you control over
conversion parameters (why is the image smaller in PDF and Word?[1])
then you'll have to experiment with what you're feeding Flare. For
example, maybe it somehow handles PNG images better than JPG. Or maybe
it has a bad scaling algorithm, and you can use something else to
scale the image down to a size that Flare can use as-is.

For what it's worth, I always just use the built-in screen capture in
Windows (Alt+PrintScreen), paste into Paint, and then manipulate
either in Paint or IrfanView. I like PNG format for screenshots since
it is inherently lossless (like BMP, but with much smaller file size),
but not everything knows how to handle PNGs well (embedding images
into Microsoft Word or Outlook, for example, works better with BMP).

Maybe it would help if you can provide more details. I obviously have
never used Flare. Or Snagit, for that matter, but I think it's less
likely that Snagit is the problem. If you can post an actual image
(can't attach here, use something like Imgur.com; I personally like
Postimages.org), that might help also.

John Y.

[1] What is especially disconcerting to me is that the aspect ratio
wasn't preserved. At least given the pixel dimensions you've provided.
If the true, raw image is 1536 x 840, then a smaller version might be
660 x 361 or 649 x 355. Give or take a pixel here or there, not 6 or
11 pixels.