If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 17/11/2019 21.46, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote: On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 08:55:15 +0100, occam wrote: "FileOptimizer is an advanced file optimizer featuring a lossless (no quality loss) file size reduction that supports: a host of file types" The file types include images, pdf, etc. If you are worried about 'embedded' images in the pdf, you shoudn't. Carlos brought up a point that people (not me) distinguish between o Optimize o Shrink (reduce size) OK. I admit ignorance. I don't know the difference (since I treat them the same). Since I assume my treating them the same is wrong, does everyone else already agree what the distinction is between optimize & shrink? Are you familiar with compilers? Like GCC. If you search for "optimize" you'll see that you can optimize for size or for speed - mutually exclusive. And then there are many other subtle variations of "optimize", like do this but not that. Well, it is the same thing, you have to define what is your personal goal "optimizing" PDFs - and both are of interest depending on the case. You may want to reduce size, but not touching images, or yes but up to a limit. Just an example. Or you may want to replace usage of fonts like "Times New Roman" to plain "Times" - because this allow removal of the font definition from the file and instead use the PDF viever definition of that font. I have done this in text mostly PDFs which "optimized" from a few hundred kilobytes to just a few kilobytes. This particular optimization I would like to find a program in Linux to do it, because I lost my method: Libre Office has removed support for printer fonts, which allowed this trick. With regard to PDF, the notion of "optimize" was defined by Adobe long ago. It already has a definition and you guys should not ruin it by conflating it with "shrink". "Optimize" is with respect to byte-serving, as far as I can remember. A typical usage of the English, here. https://forums.asp.net/t/1027406.asp...a+HTTP+handler Byte Serving PDF with a HTTP handler Sep 19, 2006 08:01 PM pdf files intended to be served in byte ranges should be linearized (web optimized) for best performance when they are created. Such a feature was in the Adobe product I bought before 2006. Who knows, you might even find a reference to this topic in the PDF spec. Messing around with the file for some other purpose, the word "shrink" at least does not detract from the original definition of optimize. Paul |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
On 19/11/2019 01.52, Paul wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote: On 17/11/2019 21.46, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote: On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 08:55:15 +0100, occam wrote: .... With regard to PDF, the notion of "optimize" was defined by Adobe long ago. It already has a definition and you guys should not ruin it by conflating it with "shrink". Ah, but I have a excuse :-D This thread was posted to several groups, including Linux groups, thus I'm entitled to claim I do not know that Adobe is or what they say :-P "Optimize" is with respect to byte-serving, as far as I can remember. A typical usage of the English, here. https://forums.asp.net/t/1027406.asp...a+HTTP+handler Â*Â* Byte Serving PDF with a HTTP handler Â*Â* Sep 19, 2006 08:01 PM Â*Â* pdf files intended to be served in byte ranges should be linearized Â*Â* (web optimized) for best performance when they are created. Such a feature was in the Adobe product I bought before 2006. Who knows, you might even find a reference to this topic in the PDF spec. So you mean optimize for web serving? In what sense, what do they do? Maybe means that when we start downloading a PDF it will display complete, but in bad definition, and details will complete and polish as it continues downloading? Hum, I don't think PDFs do this. DjVus do. To be pedantic, it is not "optimize" but "web optimize". Ie, optimize for some goal. We can use the word "optimize" for another goal :-P Messing around with the file for some other purpose, the word "shrink" at least does not detract from the original definition of optimize. Â*Â* Paul -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
FileOptimizer: https://nikkhokkho.sourceforge.io/st...=FileOptimizer P.S File Optimizer, which exists in portable form also (32-bit and x64 versions) not only optimizes pdfs but also images (jpgs, pngs..) and other file formats. I only use it for pdf-shrinking. Thanks for the recommendation. It's a keeper until I find something better. 1.) excellent compression ratio 2.) portability isn't intuitive (must install full exe-copy all Program Files to a portable folder-uninstall) 3.) nag screens 4.) cannot change output folder (saves in same folder as original PDF) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
P.S File Optimizer, which exists in portable form also (32-bit and x64 versions) not only optimizes pdfs but also images (jpgs, pngs..) and other file formats. I only use it for pdf-shrinking. Notice that optimizing images may mean reducing their quality, thus saying that a PDF was optimized does not mean much if the compromises taken are not listed. By default, the app doesn't perform lossy jpeg or png optimizations, and doesn't downsample PDF dpi. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
"Carlos E.R." writes:
Are you familiar with compilers? Like GCC. If you search for "optimize" you'll see that you can optimize for size or for speed - mutually exclusive. In the case of compilers, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Smaller is often faster. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
On 19/11/2019 10.16, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
"Carlos E.R." writes: Are you familiar with compilers? Like GCC. If you search for "optimize" you'll see that you can optimize for size or for speed - mutually exclusive. In the case of compilers, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Smaller is often faster. No, is not completely true or not always. It is true for the load time of the process from disk or swap, of course. And optimizing for speed does faster than optimizing for size. Some of the optimizations for speed are expanding loops, for instance. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
On 19/11/2019 08.15, M. L. wrote:
P.S File Optimizer, which exists in portable form also (32-bit and x64 versions) not only optimizes pdfs but also images (jpgs, pngs..) and other file formats. I only use it for pdf-shrinking. Notice that optimizing images may mean reducing their quality, thus saying that a PDF was optimized does not mean much if the compromises taken are not listed. By default, the app doesn't perform lossy jpeg or png optimizations, and doesn't downsample PDF dpi. Notice that I said that the compromises taken have to be listed. If there are no compromises, it has to be said. Just "optimize" (for size) doesn't say much. So in this case "the app doesn't perform lossy jpeg or png optimizations, and doesn't downsample PDF dpi" has to be said together with the app citation. Not knowing the app, my guess is that the app can also do those optimizations on request. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
On 19/11/2019 08.57, ken wrote:
In article , lid says... PS2PS(1) Ghostscript Tools PS2PS(1) This isn't 'Ghostscript' its 'Ghostscript Tools'. Notice the man page points out that these 'use' Ghostscript. I don't think I said the contrary? But you refer to ps2ps, and post the man page from 'Ghostscript tools PS2PS'. Hence my points above. I believe (not unreasonably I feel ) that the ps2ps you were referring to was the Ghostscript ps2ps. But I said neither it was Ghostcript nor Ghostscript tools. I just mentioned a "Linux tool" and pasted part of the man page I have. I did "man ps2ps", not "man PS2PS". If there is an error in the man page itself, the error is not mine, I did not change it. Do *not* convert a PDF file to PostScript just so you can send the resulting file through Ghostscript to get a PDF file. If you do that you will very negatively impact the quality, as well as making the output PDF file larger. I don't think the quality should be impacted :-? You *cannot* represent PDF transparency in PostScript, the PostScript graphics model does not contain any real transparency (overprint and masks do not count IMO and certainly do not approach the complexity of the PDF transparency model. You cannot presere ToUnicode CMaps through such a conversion and much other metadata (hyperlinks for example) can only be preserved by use of pdfmakrs. Some PDF constructs cannot be fully represented by pdfmarks. Ah, links. Ok, I forgot to mention I do those things only for printing. First point; don't use the scripts, use Ghostscript directly. For that, /I/ would have to know the exact concoction to mimic the script while using Ghostscript directly, and I don't. There is documentation replete with examples, and besides, its trivial: gs -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -o output.pdf input Or gs -sDEVICE=ps2write -o output.ps input That is almost entirely what the scripts (in a bizarre and confusing way) do. The fact that they are confusing confuses me to not know how to do it calling gs directly ;-) I would need a cheat list -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
"Carlos E.R." writes:
On 19/11/2019 10.16, Richard Kettlewell wrote: "Carlos E.R." writes: Are you familiar with compilers? Like GCC. If you search for "optimize" you'll see that you can optimize for size or for speed - mutually exclusive. In the case of compilers, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Smaller is often faster. No, is not completely true or not always. It is true for the load time of the process from disk or swap, of course. What isn’t completely true? I think “smaller is often faster” really is true, as a statement about compiler optimisations. It’s vague, but that doesn’t make it false. A few things that are bigger and faster (e.g. loop unrolling, alignment, a subset of inlining) do not contradict the statement. They would contradict “smaller is always faster”, or “smaller is almost always faster”, but nobody is claiming either. “Size vs speed” being mutually exclusive is definitely wrong though. Output from gcc -O1 will pretty reliably be both smaller and faster than from gcc -O0, for example. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
On 19/11/2019 08:06, M. L. wrote:
Â*FileOptimizer: https://nikkhokkho.sourceforge.io/st...=FileOptimizer P.S File Optimizer, which exists in portable form also (32-bit and x64 versions) not only optimizes pdfs but also images (jpgs, pngs..) and other file formats. I only use it for pdf-shrinking. Thanks for the recommendation. It's a keeper until I find something better. 1.) excellent compression ratio 2.) portability isn't intuitive (must install full exe-copy all Program Files to a portable folder-uninstall) 3.) nag screens 4.) cannot change output folder (saves in same folder as original PDF) (2) - agree, it's a relatively recent development, and a bit of a pain-in-the-arse Re (3) - I get no nag screen. Is thsi during installation or when you are using the FileOptimizer? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
On 20/11/2019 13:18, Dan Purgert wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 M. L. wrote: Â*FileOptimizer: https://nikkhokkho.sourceforge.io/st...=FileOptimizer P.S File Optimizer, which exists in portable form also (32-bit and x64 versions) not only optimizes pdfs but also images (jpgs, pngs..) and other file formats. I only use it for pdf-shrinking. Thanks for the recommendation. It's a keeper until I find something better. 1.) excellent compression ratio 2.) portability isn't intuitive (must install full exe-copy all Program Files to a portable folder-uninstall) 3.) nag screens 4.) cannot change output folder (saves in same folder as original PDF) (2) - agree, it's a relatively recent development, and a bit of a pain-in-the-arse Re (3) - I get no nag screen. Is thsi during installation or when you are using the FileOptimizer? I continuously encounter the following nag popup after clicking the OK or No button to any Options setting, whether I change anything or not. (nag snipped) Definitely a reason to *not* use that software (TBH, it reminds me of the "freemium" / "shareware" stuff from the 1990s) Hmm. I wonder if the reason I don't get nags is because of some ad-inhibiting add-on, or maybe the fact that I did (in some recent past) contribute some money to his cause? I suspect it is the former - I do NOT recall receiving any special codes to deactivate any ads. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
Hmm. I wonder if the reason I don't get nags is because of some ad-inhibiting add-on, [snip] I do NOT recall receiving any special codes to deactivate any ads. I also have ad-blocks and HOSTS enabled so I followed your cue and instead of clicking on "No" to disallow displaying ads, I clicked "Yes" to allow them. Now the nagging is gone, and I don't see any ads either. Thanks. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
On 20/11/2019 14.47, M. L. wrote:
Hmm. I wonder if the reason I don't get nags is because of some ad-inhibiting add-on, [snip] I do NOT recall receiving any special codes to deactivate any ads. I also have ad-blocks and HOSTS enabled so I followed your cue and instead of clicking on "No" to disallow displaying ads, I clicked "Yes" to allow them. Now the nagging is gone, and I don't see any ads either. Thanks. Don't you think that it is fair on him to allow adds? He deserves getting money, if it is a good program. As long as they don't obstruct the view or be intrusive. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
Hmm. I wonder if the reason I don't get nags is because of some ad-inhibiting add-on, [snip] I do NOT recall receiving any special codes to deactivate any ads. I also have ad-blocks and HOSTS enabled so I followed your cue and instead of clicking on "No" to disallow displaying ads, I clicked "Yes" to allow them. Now the nagging is gone, and I don't see any ads either. Thanks. Don't you think that it is fair on him to allow adds? He deserves getting money, if it is a good program. As long as they don't obstruct the view or be intrusive. I already stated that I gave the app permission to display ads. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|