Info panel not displaying eps info

Question

I cannot get the ppi information to display in the info panel. Is this some new spangly feature of InDesign, or a bug?

Answer 1

Clarification of what is claimed, and why we are perpetuating this conversation.
John, that's jut nit picking at what I said.
Sorry, I tried to make it clear, it's a nit but I think it is a very important one. Please feel free to disagree. But when we're talking about whether a file format that's important to people is doing to be supported, or is going to go away, it's very important to be clear about the public statements that have been made. Similarly, I do get bothered when EPS is described as "archaic" or "obsolete." It fills needs that are not filled by PDF or AI files, and while it is certainly older than PDF, it is of peer age to TIFF and JPEG. It is certainly less frequently used, and in many applications there are better choices (like PDF). But not in all.
The issue of "double standards."
John, nor do you really say why you think EPS is preferred. Double standards here.
I'm sorry, but please reread my post. I do not say that "EPS is preferred." I talk about several things it can and cannot do, and explain why, for instance, it and PDF show some of the same deficiencies in InDesign's Info panel. I tell you some reasons that I like it. But I do not in fact believe that it is a "better" format most of the time, and make no such claim. It is unfair to ask me to substantiate claims I did not make. I tried to be quite careful on this one.
Yes, generally PDFs are better. But.
You have produced quite a link storm there, but I'm afraid they don't do a terribly clear job of explaining why these other formats are better than EPS, and for exactly which applications. If your point is to say that in general, one should not prefer EPS over PDF, then that's fine. I think it is a true statement.
What bothers me about the statements in this thread (and this forum in general frequently echoed on this forum) is that it is wrong to use EPS; that EPS is obsolete; that Adobe InDesign will drop support for EPS; that EPS is archaic. That's simply not the case. It might be the wrong format for bigdrunk (it probably is; but we don't really know what he is doing). It is not the wrong format for everyone.
Addressing the external links/references
But we should be clear on what we're talking about. Your initial link, to Real World Illustrator's What's in a file? does a great job of describing the output formats from Illustrator. It doesn't really make a recommendation, other than to note that PDF supports some features that EPS does not. Transparency being the key point, and we've mentioned that only four times before your post. I'm not sure if that's the "plain as day" or not.
Adobe's David Evans' psvspdf post similarly discusses both formats, and suggests that EPS is a replacement for PDF -- which it is. But that only gets you so far. It doesn't address the fact that PDF files can have downsides compared to EPS files (many articulated above in the thread), but really just says that PDF can do most of the things that EPS can do. That's certainly true. After all, you can put EPS files inside PDF files! But that doesn't tell you that you're better off writing to a PDF file in any particular case. To pick a few examples from above, some apps can only read EPS files and can't read PDF files. And others can generate EPS files much more easily than they can generate PDF files.
I am rather apalled that you would cite eHow. They are rather notorious for giving bad advice that is not vetted by experts. In this case, though, the eHow post merely answers the question, "If an EPS file won't work, what are the alternatives?" It seems to do so correctly, but its not relevant to this discussion.
Craig Kirkwood's Pixel Therapy link is more general advice, for "How should I save my Illustrator work?" And again, none of us here who are speaking up for EPS are saying that it is the preferred file for Illustrator work (though I did point out that Illustrator can produce smaller EPSs than PDFs, which is bizarre).
PDF-in-AI or AI-in-PDF?
(although I disagree about saving as PDF from Illustrator with editing capabilities, best to save as ai with PDF)
Why do you think so? In general, they should be equivalent -- in both cases a PDF file is available to PDF-reading applications, and in both cases (and in Illustrator EPS, by the way), Illustrator private data is preserved for full Illustrator editing capability. I would say that distributing .PDF files is a better choice, because if a non-expert person receives a .ai attachment in their email, they are more likely to be confused about how to view, print or render it than they would be if they receive a .pdf file. That may not sound like the most compelling reason, but I can't think of one that is more compelling.
No flat recommendation of EPS over PDF.
I quite literally CANNOT find one source that recommends EPS over AI or PDF???
I wonder why that is?
To be honest, I think it is because there are very few experts on these file formats. You need to really understand the low-level file format to be qualified to offer an opinion on the merits of the file format by itself. And the merits of the file format aren't really the point most of the time -- what matters is the applications that you use, and how they handle it. Does a given application produce better PDF files or better EPS files. Does another application read EPS files better than it reads PDF files? Are there apps that read or write one but not the other? Is there a savings in file structure, in maintenance, in cost, in aggravation.
Most of the people who write about these things are aware of the ramifications and the practical effects of the choices, but not the low-level details.
Most of the time the low-level details do not matter. But they do indeed matter to some of us, and it is those of us who have spoken up in this thread.
In favor of EPS, but in a limited way.
Why EPS is sometimes better.
Can you explain why you think EPS is better than ai or PDF? Can you point me to any online sources, or books?
As we have enumerated in this thread (and the other recent one, I guess), EPS has the following potential advantages over PDF; they may not be important to you, but they are sometimes important to some of us in some cases:
1. It can be easily authored by humans and tools without requiring complex tools to convert into intermediate formats (e.g. Acrobat Distiller; pstopdf or GNU Ghostscript; expensive libraries to produce PDF output);
2. If appropriately written, it can produce human-readable ASCII output that can be understood by someone familiar with EPS. For programatically generated output, seeing that the code says "Draw a circle at coordinates (1 inch, 1 inch)" can be extremely valuable. In such an EPS file, that might be "1 inch 1 inch drawcircle."
3. Bitmap binary data can be more efficiently JPEG encoded in EPS than in PDF. (I was not aware of this, and do not know it to be the case. But Uwe mentions it.)
4. Gernot's point regarding direct CMYK specifications. I'm honestly not sure what it is, so I won't try to explain it.
5. Some apps output cleaner EPS files than they do PDF files. Apparently Illustrator is one such app. Which is bizarre.
6. Some applications/clients/specifications require EPS, such as the CUMULUS database.
As for AI, well, as we've already said above AI and PDF are essentially equivalent, as both can contain PDF images and Illustrator private data. But EPS is certainly better than Illustrator private data because it is an open, well-documented standard. Anyone with enough time on their hands can interpret an EPS file acording to a public, published spec that's been around for years. There are free and commericial software PostScript renderers, and there are an abundance of PostScript printers. None of those things are true for AI.
The rest.
What's left? I think that's really about it. You've spent quite a bit of time arguing against a position I do not think anyone was adopting.