On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:24:34 -0400 (EDT), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
>> western.pdf 119190 bytes (the original .PDF)
>> western.zbm 32307 bytes (screen-cap of the PDF after converting to
>> _ BMPs with GhostScript/PDF2HTM.bat and viewed
>> _ in Arachne)(screen-cap made with Cntrl+P)
> Well, that convinces me... *pdf is definitely "better."
> I can easily read the name of the town on the map,
> Paramaribo in the pdf file, but I would never have been
> able to make that out for certain on the same section of
> the bmp map. (not to mention, the colors are different)
> A pdf file is like vector graphics. You can enlarge
> and enlarge, but you don't get that blocky look when you
> do.
> http://wizard.dyndns.org/pdf.png
> http://wizard.dyndns.org/bmp.png
> PDF means Portable Document Format, and was designed
> as a way to transfer *documents* meant for printing.
> Naturally, in order for such a document to retain a
> lot of fine detail, it's going to be a larger file.
> File formats all have their trade-offs. PDF gives
> great detail at the cost of a littl more size. How
> could it be otherwise?
Here's my final test of PDF vs ZBM <g>
(these are 200dpi instead of the 72dpi in my first conversion)
http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm
western1_200dpi.zip 38216 bytes
western2_200dpi.zip 51756 bytes
(added together, they are still less than 50% the size of the original PDF)
--
Glenn
http://arachne.cz/
http://freedos-32.sourceforge.net/
http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/
http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm
