>On 23 August 2010 13:34, filip sound wrote: -- hi, thanks for info but ... >i already posted examples months (maybe a year) ago where the >'same pdf was >converted and i even made a tool to count and >animate the clips in the >resulting swfs to examine the pdf2swf >output. new version was worse >(invisible shapes under objects >and thus much more objects ... bad for >web/cpu/speed/>performance) >regards, >filip
I was merely refuting a sweeping generalisation made by Sameer and yourself, namely, that later versions of pdf2swf produce larger swf's than previous versions. I found that not to be *always* the case. Obviously whatever you happen to be doing has the opposite effect. Hopefully a reason will found. Perhaps you'd care to humour us, and post yet another example. Regards, Chris.
