A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old November 19th 19, 01:52 AM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default 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  
Old November 19th 19, 04:06 AM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default 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  
Old November 19th 19, 08:06 AM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
M. L.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default 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  
Old November 19th 19, 08:15 AM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
M. L.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default 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  
Old November 19th 19, 08:57 AM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
ken
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs

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.


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.


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.


Ken
  #21  
Old November 19th 19, 10:16 AM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
Richard Kettlewell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default 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  
Old November 19th 19, 02:14 PM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default 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  
Old November 19th 19, 02:19 PM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default 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  
Old November 19th 19, 02:31 PM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default 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  
Old November 19th 19, 05:55 PM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
Richard Kettlewell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default 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  
Old November 19th 19, 08:39 PM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
occam[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 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  
Old November 20th 19, 02:30 PM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
occam[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 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  
Old November 20th 19, 02:47 PM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
M. L.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default 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  
Old November 20th 19, 03:23 PM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default 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  
Old November 21st 19, 10:41 AM posted to comp.text.pdf,alt.comp.freeware,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux
M. L.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default 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
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.