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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Freitag, 15. November 2002 19:53
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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"                         
>                                                               
>                       
>                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]       To:     
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                                     
>                                
>                     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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Freitag, 15. November 2002 18:46
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

<<attachment: daten.svg>>

Reply via email to