[Scribus] "Nice" PDF
Sat Jan 28 15:18:23 CET 2006
Am 28.01.2006 um 12:00 schrieb scribus-request at nashi.altmuehlnet.de:
> From: Wolfgang Dobler <Wolfgang.Dobler at ucalgary.ca>
> Subject: [Scribus] "Nice" PDF
> To: scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de
> Message-ID: <17370.57550.717456.681923 at kolmogorov.capca.ucalgary.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> [I cannot find the thread on this, so I have to start a new one]
> I think I have found a way to convert Scribus' (printing-press
> PDF into `nice' (more Web-oriented) PDF.
> Here's the story, plus a few questions:
> As you see, the resulting PDF is more than 5 times smaller.
> And now for the mysterious part: The new PDF file is not only smaller,
> it is `nicer' (for on-screen reading) in three aspects:
> (i) In Acroread 7 (the buggy one, I don't have any other around for
> comparing) on Linux, the text appears not to be antialiased for the
> PDF, but is perfectly so for the new one.
> Xpdf shows both fine (and identical as far as I can tell).
> Gv/ghostscript hangs while antialiasing the old file, but shows the
> file fine.
> (ii) Text marking and searching in the old file works not too well in
> Acroread (with lots of gaps in marked text), and practically not at
> in Xpdf. It works perfect for the new file in both applications.
> (iii) The picture is shown far too dark in Acroread for the old file,
> fine for the new file. Xpdf once again shows identical results for
> Point (i) could be the switched-off font hinting in Scribus' PDF that
> was mentioned before. But how on Earth can pdftohtml + gs
> the hinting information?
Yes, that's what I think, too. The hinting information is still in the
embedded fonts but gets destroyed be subsetting, since this also
converts to outlines ATM.
> Point (ii) sounds like it is caused by Scribus placing separate
> characters into the PDF, rather than whole words -- and gs
> reassembling the words very efficiently.
Exactly. I'm surprised gs is so good at it. Can you search only single
words or whole phrases?
> Point (iii) could have to do with the fact (I am quoting out of my
> that Acroread never touches the CMYK values, while other viewers
> colour profiles (or such).
No idea there.
Thanks for this interesting approach!
More information about the scribus