Circuit Editing

Hello friends,

I have a very little problem in here. Can some one please tell me how do I reduce the attached schematic to only six key code switch and data entry switch along with reducing the number of XOR gates to six. From which software can this editing thing be done?
Thanks

Hello sonia i am also indian will u be my friend so that we can discuss our questions or problems.

You can edit it with Windows Paint or any other graphics program.

I tried to do with paint but am not really aware of most of its functions and how it enhances images. If it's easy, can someone please erase and enhance the image since it's very urgent and I really have no idea how to do it :'(

Please please please please please don't think of using Windows Paint to edit images! Really.

This is a brain-damaged tool that just happens to come with every copy of Windows sold on earth. Just because it's there doesn't make it a suitable tool.

The only reason I can see to use it would be if there's nothing else available. At this late stage of the game (we're well into the 21st century), there are so many other good tools available, some for free, that it's a joke to suggest using Paint.

Myself, I've been using Paint Shop Pro for, well, decades now. It has a little less power than Photoshop, with a lot less bloat (program size), is fast, easy to use, intuitive, etc., etc.

If you're a fan of free, open-source software, there's always Gimp. Haven't ever seen or used it, so can't comment.

Then there are vector-based drawing tools (like Corel Draw, which I use, or Adobe Illustrator or InDesign, or many others) that may be more suitable to tasks like this; instead of messing around with pixels, you can easily draw the shapes that make up a circuit (lines, rectangles, circles and ellipses, arrowheads, etc.). For instance, this was made with Corel Draw:

**broken link removed**

Then there are the tools specifically made for drawing schematics: ExpressSCH is one, and LTspice comes with a rudimentary but adequate schematic editor.

Friends don't let friends use MS Paint!

I agree: MS Paint is not ideal. But if it's all you've got ........
Sonia123, there's little scope for 'enhancing' the image (whichever graphics software is used) as the original clarity has been lost by the JPEG compression. The GIF image format is much better for schematics. If you MUST use Paint, then the eraser tool will do the job.

Hi.

Repainting schematics using Inkscape has proven (to me) to get the best looking schematics.
Only turnoff is that it's just not an schematic editor so it takes more time.

Point is - By creating (too) small (regarding to DPI) jpg images is much the same as go buying a new book that cover some nice artworks and ditch that book in a mudhole, and in ash, and take it on a trip to the bio trash and dry it slow so the mud and will sink into every sheets in the book.

To make that book readable again, you'll most likely rewrite it.

Just for teasing I choose to redraw a fraction of the drawing. It's done in Inkscape (as earlier mentioned) and scaled up (180 dpi in Inkscape).

So what is Inkscape? Is it a bitmap or vector editor (or both)? I'm ASS-U-Ming bitmap. (Like my Paint Shop Pro; although PSP has some vector-drawing functions, it only creates bitmap formats.)

yusuf said:

Hello sonia i am also indian will u be my friend so that we can discuss our questions or problems.

Click to expand...

try a chat site like mocospace yusuf!!

This is very interesting to know about,as I couldn't find any other options I redrew the circuit using logisim but you have a strong point in here which I am definitely gonna try. And Grossel, it would be really sweet if you could give more information about Inkscape.
Thanks everyone
God Bless

You could try GIMP (gnu Image Manipulation Program). I haven't used it myself.

(Editorializing: however, like much (most?) open-source software, it's mainly designed by geeks for geeks, not for average users. In other words, if you don't know what a "binary" is and how to create it, forget it! And I notice their installer only works for Windows XP SP2 or later, which leaves me out.)

carbonzit said:

So what is Inkscape? Is it a bitmap or vector editor (or both)?. .

Click to expand...

Pure vector. But it does allow importing bitmap files (as independent objects thought).

Inkscape is to be found: **broken link removed**

Aha. So it's basically an open-source Corel Draw. I've used Corel for years, and it's a very powerful drawing tool. (Lots of bugs, too.)

Just because I was bored (and was sick to death of working on my PHP project, and needed a good reason to procrastinate), I whipped up the schematic in Illustrator. There is the rasterized image available (the PNG), and the ZIP file contains both the original .AI file, as well as a .EPS (encapsulated postscript) file that you may have better luck opening if you're using another vector drawing program.

Doktor Jones: Just wonder how long times you spend on that? My guess is 20 to 30 minutes.

Once again - to make such schematics being an adequate to look at (compared to those ugly jpg's) does require time for a human to recreate.

Why do you insist on "ugly JPGs"?

This is another misconception that ought to be demolished. There's nothing inherently bad about the JPEG format that makes them unsuitable for schematics, or any other sort of illustration.

However, having said that, there are better formats for a number of reasons:

• JPGs are (usually, not always) larger than necessary (file size, not image size)
• JPGs (usually) have an unnecessarily large color gamut which is not needed for things like schematics **
• JPGs can be degraded by multiple copying, since it's a "lossy" image format. However, this is usually a small problem.

** It is possible to create JPGs with less than "millions of colors", for instance grayscale (256 shades of gray), but it's usually not worth the trouble, as a corresponding GIF will be smaller.

So there's no need to single out JPGs as the "bad guy". Me, I prefer GIF: compact, universally readable, easy to make 2- or 16-color images. (My schematics are usually 16-color grayscale, reduced from 256 colors.)

JPGs are not inherently "fuzzy". They can be just as sharp as any PNG, GIF, BMP, TIFF, or any other format you care to name.

Hey! Let's go back to the 1990s and standardize on TIFF! Anyone?

carbonzit said:

So there's no need to single out JPGs as the "bad guy". Me, I prefer GIF: compact, universally readable, easy to make 2- or 16-color images. (My schematics are usually 16-color grayscale, reduced from 256 colors.)

Click to expand...

Personally I prefer PNG -- for the most part works the same as GIF, but you can have 24-bit PNG with an alpha channel, which is awesome for certain applications

carbonzit said:

Hey! Let's go back to the 1990s and standardize on TIFF! Anyone?

Click to expand...

TIFF is actually pretty awesome

I don't know how much time it took me... probably about 30 minutes overall, though I did it in few-minute bursts throughout the day. Also, if you'll look at the vector images, you'll notice there's a "library" of schematic symbols I made over to the left. From there it was just copying and pasting them (rotating occasionally), and then playing connect the dots.

carbonzit said:

Why do you insist on "ugly JPGs"?
This is another misconception that ought to be demolished. There's nothing inherently bad about the JPEG format that makes them unsuitable for schematics, or any other sort of illustration.

Click to expand...

I'm terrible sorry if I have said something wrong about the jpg format. I have no intension to claim jpg being "bad", consider my previous post being an overstatement.

carbonzit said:

However, having said that, there are better formats for a number of reasons:

• JPGs are (usually, not always) larger than necessary (file size, not image size)
• JPGs (usually) have an unnecessarily large color gamut which is not needed for things like schematics **
• JPGs can be degraded by multiple copying, since it's a "lossy" image format. However, this is usually a small problem.

Click to expand...

I'm agree

carbonzit said:

** It is possible to create JPGs with less than "millions of colors", for instance grayscale (256 shades of gray), but it's usually not worth the trouble, as a corresponding GIF will be smaller.

Click to expand...

Fact. Agree.

carbonzit said:

So there's no need to single out JPGs as the "bad guy". Me, I prefer GIF: compact, universally readable, easy to make 2- or 16-color images. (My schematics are usually 16-color grayscale, reduced from 256 colors.)

Click to expand...

PNG is my favorite, but gif's is also good.

carbonzit said:

JPGs are not inherently "fuzzy". They can be just as sharp as any PNG, GIF, BMP, TIFF, or any other format you care to name.

Click to expand...

Correct in theory.

carbonzit said:

Hey! Let's go back to the 1990s and standardize on TIFF! Anyone?

Click to expand...

Who is overstating now?

Conclusion:
In theory, jpg can be sharp yes. But for schematic, jpg isn't suitable when comparing against other formats.

Tiff format is used by my scanner (bought in 2010) and tiff is probably still the prefered format for loseless big graphic images.

When I used the word ugly in my latter post, I didn't ment to talk bad about the format itself. But users that convert their schematic into jpg's have probably never learned the difference between different graphic formats and basic computer graphics. The result is therefore an ugly outcome of an otherwise probably great outwork.
A typical example is to be found in this thread.

Just to put this whole "fuzzy JPG" business to rest once and for all, I created the images below from the same Corel Draw file. Exact same size, both grayscale. One's a GIF, the other a JPEG. I challenge you to tell me which one is which, without looking at the image name.

**broken link removed**

or

**broken link removed**

carbonzit said:

Just to put this whole "fuzzy JPG" business to rest once and for all, I created the images below from the same Corel Draw file. Exact same size, both grayscale. One's a GIF, the other a JPEG. I challenge you to tell me which one is which, without looking at the image name.

Click to expand...

No, you don't make it rest. You blow the discussion to a whole new level.

Well I took you on your word. I did't have to look at their names. But guess what image that occupy most space?

Also I have a challenge back. Make the image as small as possible without further reduce it's colors or dimensions. Try to make that picture's file size smaller than my png file.

Also, just as an opposite example I did reduced it's size and saved it as jpg with high compression rate. I have seen worse pictures than this.