May I humbly suggest that you go read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics ?
In particular, note this section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics#File_size_factors Incidentally Chris, why exactly are you advocating the use of a proprietary graphic manipulation software package, on a no-patent image format? Especially one that has a known propensiity for wrecking png images rather than handling them properly. Still your loss ( or gain if you follow my drift ). ;o) Regards, Chris. >On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:30:35 +0700 >Chris de Kok <[email protected]> wrote: > No actually now I have to convert images from swfrender from png to jpg.. as > the png images where around 400kb while the jpg compression is only around > 150kb.. > > Open up photoshop and do save for web it's easy to see the different file > sizes between jpg / png and gif. Png does have better quality because it is > a lossless format while jpg uses a lossy format. > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Sameer Atre <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Are you sure Chris ..? > > > > I always thought that PNG was the natural choice of use while introducing > > images into flash than JPEG or GIF simply because PNG offers more > > compression with least loss in quality. And of course like you said it also > > supports transparency. > > > > On 30/08/2010 12:44, Sameer Atre wrote: > > > > then what else could be the reason for this : > > > > * [015] 691055 DEFINEBITSJPEG2 defines id 0003 > > ** [014] 150636 DEFINEBITSLOSSLESS defines id 0003 image 1272x2092 > > (8 bpp)* > > * > > * > > On 30/08/2010 12:40, Chris de Kok wrote: > > > > 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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- Chris <[email protected]>
