I doubt it as jpg are mostly much smaller then png only they disadvantage is that they don't have transparency.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Sameer Atre <[email protected]>wrote: > > Another interesting observation here is : > > 1. Took the page converted by the previous version and compared it with > the newer one using *swfextract* and then *swfdump*. > > 2. It seems that the older one used to store image content as a PNG while > now the preferred choice is JPEG. > > *New > [-i] 3 Shapes: ID(s) 1, 2, 4 > [-j] 1 JPEG: ID(s) 3 > [-f] 1 Frame: ID(s) 0 > * > *Old > [-i] 3 Shapes: ID(s) 1, 2, 4 > [-p] 1 PNG: ID(s) 3 > [-f] 1 Frame: ID(s) 0 > > *3. Dump from swfdump > > *New* > *[HEADER] File version: 9 > [HEADER] File is zlib compressed. Ratio: 95% > [HEADER] File size: 691240 > [HEADER] Frame rate: 0.250000 > [HEADER] Frame count: 1 > [HEADER] Movie width: 610.00 > [HEADER] Movie height: 1004.00 > [045] 4 FILEATTRIBUTES usenetwork as3 > [009] 3 SETBACKGROUNDCOLOR (ff/ff/ff) > [020] 34 DEFINESHAPE3 defines id 0001 > [01a] 7 PLACEOBJECT2 places id 0001 at depth 0001 (clip to > 0003) > [020] 40 DEFINESHAPE3 defines id 0002 > [01a] 5 PLACEOBJECT2 places id 0002 at depth 0002 > [015] 691055 DEFINEBITSJPEG2 defines id 0003 > [002] 40 DEFINESHAPE defines id 0004 > [01a] 5 PLACEOBJECT2 places id 0004 at depth 0003 > [001] 0 SHOWFRAME 1 (00:00:00,000) > [000] 0 END* > > *Old * > *[HEADER] File version: 9 > [HEADER] File is zlib compressed. Ratio: 98% > [HEADER] File size: 150826 > [HEADER] Frame rate: 0.250000 > [HEADER] Frame count: 1 > [HEADER] Movie width: 610.00 > [HEADER] Movie height: 1004.00 > [309] 3 REFLEX > [045] 4 FILEATTRIBUTES > [009] 3 SETBACKGROUNDCOLOR (ff/ff/ff) > [020] 34 DEFINESHAPE3 defines id 0001 > [01a] 7 PLACEOBJECT2 places id 0001 at depth 0001 (clip to > 0003) > [020] 40 DEFINESHAPE3 defines id 0002 > [01a] 5 PLACEOBJECT2 places id 0002 at depth 0002 > [014] 150636 DEFINEBITSLOSSLESS defines id 0003 image 1272x2092 (8 > bpp) > [002] 40 DEFINESHAPE defines id 0004 > [01a] 5 PLACEOBJECT2 places id 0004 at depth 0003 > [001] 0 SHOWFRAME 1 (00:00:00,000) > [000] 0 END* > > 4. Could this be the reason for the size bloat (as PNG has a better > compression ratio compared to JPEG.) ? > > 5. As size of swf goes up there is substantial cost increase in terms of > storage and time (time required to transmit and render these large sized > pages onto a browser) > and this leads to overall lower performance in my opinion. > > 6. I was wondering about the reason behind using jpeg as the choice of > storing image content instead of png. > > 7. Is there a way of forcing pdf2swf to use png in place of jpeg ..? > > Thnx, > Sameer > > > On 26/08/2010 11:04, Sameer Atre wrote: > > Done - it worked ! > > Tried out with subpixels=1 and subpixels=2. > I found subpixels to be most effective; swf size came down from 3MB to about > 700KB and rendering quality was preserved. > With subpixels 1 the size went down drastically to 200KB but quality > deteriorated . > > Cheers, > Sam > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:55:05PM +0530, Sameer Atre <addr...@hidden> wrote: > >* I've been a vivid user of pdf2swf since 2 - 3 years.* > >* After upgrading to ver. 0.9.1 I find that source pdf's with image * > >* content get converted into very large sized swf's.* > >* Eg : In one instance the same pdf that used to result in swf's of size * > >* 500 KB has now become 3 MB !!* > >* But for pdfs with text content the reverse is seen. i.e swfs have become * > >* smaller. Am I missing something here please ?* > > Try downscaling the images- that might help: > pdf2swf -s subpixels=1 file.pdf -o file.swf > > Matthias > > >
