You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Stephan Wiesner <st...@stephan-wiesner.de> on 2002/11/16 08:16:12 UTC
RE: Quality of Grafics: SVG
Wow, Jeff, thanks a lot for the long reply :-). I don't really need
magazine quality, but I am currently writing my dipoma thesis in
DocBook and that should look nice, including the
Graphics. Not only for the final printed version, but oline, too, as I
intend to publish it. If my employee to be is looking at it and the
graphics look bad . . .
I played some more and tried SVGs too.
I have attached a very simple SVG file. If I include it in my PDFs, the
squares look fine at every resoulution, but the writing not, again at
all resolutions. I tried different SVGs, some I didn't create myself,
and the problem persisted. Squares look great, curves don't.
I use FOP 0.20.4 with the default Batik JARs.
Stephan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff_Mitchell@accessbusinessgroup.com
> [mailto:Jeff_Mitchell@accessbusinessgroup.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 15. November 2002 19:53
> To: fop-user@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Quality of Grafics
>
>
>
> Stephan-
>
> Glad I could help (even if it was in a passive way)
>
> Just a few parting thoughts on the matter, although it sounds
> like you've got a pretty good idea of what's going on
> already. Before you go on, though, I must apologize for the
> use of U.S. units (inches, dots per inch,
> etc.) I'm just used to dealing with said units, and things
> actually come out to nicer, rounder numbers when using inches. So...
>
> You're right that scaling the image down will both reduce the
> size of your PDF, and the quality of the image. There are a
> few things you can do to find a happy medium between PDF size
> and image quality. The most obvious is to make sure you're
> using images of an appropriate resolution. If you're using a
> digital camera, to take 1600x1200 images, and the images get
> printed in a 4inch by 3 inch rectangle on your PDF, you're
> looking at a printed resolution of 400 DPI (Dots (or pixels,
> if you prefer) Per Inch.) My system is meant to allow people
> to choose ad templates, fill them with assets (copy,
> headlines, and photos) from a database, and create a
> print-ready PDF, meaning that said PDF could be taken to a
> commercial printer for a run of 50,000 copies, or submitted
> to a magazine or other print publication for publishing. I
> use 300 DPI as a minimum for my output, and the results are
> of the same quality as most glossy magazine advertisements.
> If that kind of quality is not necessary, you may want to try
> printing a PDF with the image printed at 200 DPI (this would
> be a 800x600 pixel image, provided the print dimensions are
> still 4 inches by 3 inches, as in my previous example.) This
> halves your resolution, but reduces your image size (for an
> uncompressed image) to 1/4 it's original size.
>
> A secondary way to reduce the size of your PDF, while
> (mostly) preserving image quality is to use JPEG images as an
> input, and to play with the quality setting of the JPEG.
> It's my understanding that when FOP puts images into a PDF,
> it internally converts them to a JPEG, UNLESS the input image
> is already a JPEG, in which case it simply embeds the image
> in the PDF. Basically, this means that by using
> JPEG-formatted images as your input, you have direct control
> over the number of bytes your image content takes up in the
> resulting PDF.
>
> Depending on your requirements, you may be able to
> significantly reduce the size of your PDFs by using these 2
> methods in some sort of preprocessing step between pulling
> the image from the camera, and generating the actual PDF.
>
> Sorry about the huge reply, especially if it's information
> you already know. I didn't realize it was going to be this
> big, but perhaps it'll help some poor soul searching the
> archive in the future.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> "Stephan Wiesner"
>
>
> <stephan@stephan-w To:
> <fo...@xml.apache.org>
>
> iesner.de> cc:
>
>
> Subject: RE:
> Quality of Grafics
>
> 11/15/2002 01:27
>
>
> PM
>
>
> Please respond to
>
>
> fop-user
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jeff,
> Okay, I did prepare a document to send to you and, of course.
> I can get fine quality if I use very large pictures. I made
> them with my digital camera at 1600 resolution and formerly
> cut it to 25% size. This looked still very good on the
> screen, but not in the PDF. When I don't reduce the size, the
> quality is fine. This is, in my oppinion, because now the
> picture is at 100% when I set the Acrobat to 400%, which I
> don't do. The drawback, of course, is that the PDF gets real
> huge. I suppose that is a price I will have to pay, though
> and I can live with that.
>
> So, you helped me without really doing anything :-)
>
>
> Stephan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff_Mitchell@accessbusinessgroup.com
> > [mailto:Jeff_Mitchell@accessbusinessgroup.com]
> > Sent: Freitag, 15. November 2002 18:46
> > To: fop-user@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Quality of Grafics
> >
> >
> >
> > Stephan-
> >
> > Based on the fact that your printed copy looks correct, I
> still think
> > it might be a display issue. A quick and easy way to check
> it would
> > be to create a test document containing multiple instances
> of the same
> > image, each at a different size (either by specifying a scaling
> > factor, or by specifying hard dimensional constraints (like pt or
> > cm)). I'd bet (if I were a gambling man) that all of the printed
> > results are going to look good, while your on-screen
> representations
> > are going to be a crap shoot.
> >
> > Is the purpose of your project to create PDFs that are going to be
> > primarily viewed on-screen, or on hard copy? And if
> possible, could
> > you send me a copy of the offending PDF, and the image
> itself? (In a
> > separate e-mail directly to my address; you'll probably get
> scolded if
> > you post potentially large attachments to the group.)
> >
> > -Jeff
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>