Very OT, size of PDF files.

[mm]

Don't know where else to discuss this, because afaik there id no adobe
or pdf newsgroup.

I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the owners
manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.

Looking for later software, I went to their website and downloaded the
manual, which was 2 megs.

Strangely, they look identical, each 68 pages, and when I alt-tab from
one to the other in Acrobat, I can't see any difference in quality.

Anyone have experience with this.



If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM

 

[Mart]

Maybe worth looking at each the .pdf file's Properties in Adobe Reader (File
| Properties) to see if that tells you anything different about them

Mart


"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:5a8er3tp03crph6df0f5hj4nhd94k78k8s@4ax.com...
> Don't know where else to discuss this, because afaik there id no adobe
> or pdf newsgroup.
>
> I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the owners
> manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.
>
> Looking for later software, I went to their website and downloaded the
> manual, which was 2 megs.
>
> Strangely, they look identical, each 68 pages, and when I alt-tab from
> one to the other in Acrobat, I can't see any difference in quality.
>
> Anyone have experience with this.
>
>
>
> If you are inclined to email me
> for some reason, remove NOPSAM

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

PDF, like JPG files, are variably compressible. One of your copies got
compressed more than the other. May or may not affect the quality of the
file.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:5a8er3tp03crph6df0f5hj4nhd94k78k8s@4ax.com...
> Don't know where else to discuss this, because afaik there id no adobe
> or pdf newsgroup.
>
> I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the owners
> manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.
>
> Looking for later software, I went to their website and downloaded the
> manual, which was 2 megs.
>
> Strangely, they look identical, each 68 pages, and when I alt-tab from
> one to the other in Acrobat, I can't see any difference in quality.
>
> Anyone have experience with this.
>
>
>
> If you are inclined to email me
> for some reason, remove NOPSAM

 

[thanatoid]

mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in
news:5a8er3tp03crph6df0f5hj4nhd94k78k8s@4ax.com:

> Don't know where else to discuss this, because afaik there
> id no adobe or pdf newsgroup.

There is a pdf group, and there is an adobe acrobat group. How
popular they are is another matter. Most huge software makers
have very extensive forums on their site, Adobe probably being
no exception. You can discuss it there.

> I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the
> owners manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.
>
> Looking for later software, I went to their website and
> downloaded the manual, which was 2 megs.
>
> Strangely, they look identical, each 68 pages, and when I
> alt-tab from one to the other in Acrobat, I can't see any
> difference in quality.
>
> Anyone have experience with this.

1. Does it REALLY matter? PDF is an amazing format, just be
grateful Adobe almost redeemed its countless sins by giving it
to us.

2. Check the graphics. The resolution may be very different.

3. Although the basic concept behind the format remains the
same, improvements are made all the time (unfortunately
resulting in program bloat). The much smaller file on the site
may just be an example of that. And did you REALLY check it ALL,
paragraph by paragraph and graphic by graphic? Using the same
zoom factor?

--
"As you know, it is considered bad form to discuss the latest
news with persons from the beyond."
Karel Capek

 

[MEB]

"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:5a8er3tp03crph6df0f5hj4nhd94k78k8s@4ax.com...
| Don't know where else to discuss this, because afaik there id no adobe
| or pdf newsgroup.
|
| I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the owners
| manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.
|
| Looking for later software, I went to their website and downloaded the
| manual, which was 2 megs.
|
| Strangely, they look identical, each 68 pages, and when I alt-tab from
| one to the other in Acrobat, I can't see any difference in quality.
|
| Anyone have experience with this.
|
|
|
| If you are inclined to email me
| for some reason, remove NOPSAM

As has been stated elsewhere, the PDF format can be prepared for various
presentations, one being for say a CD manual with high quality full spectrum
and size color pictures and maxed pixels per inch/centimeter type/font, and
a web presentation which uses lower quality [and usually smaller] images
and type. Its really difficult to tell much of a difference when properly
prepared by the PDF creation application [which does that modification
during the creation format], and viewed on your desktop/monitor.. Were you
perhaps to expand those two different sized PDFs to say, a wall sized
presentation [or a 24 inch or larger display], then the differing quality
would likely be markedly noticeable.

--

MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
_________

 

[mm]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:10:30 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:5a8er3tp03crph6df0f5hj4nhd94k78k8s@4ax.com...
>| Don't know where else to discuss this, because afaik there id no adobe
>| or pdf newsgroup.
>|
>| I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the owners
>| manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.
>|
>| Looking for later software, I went to their website and downloaded the
>| manual, which was 2 megs.
>|
>| Strangely, they look identical, each 68 pages, and when I alt-tab from
>| one to the other in Acrobat, I can't see any difference in quality.
>|
>| Anyone have experience with this.
>|
To Thanatoid, No, I didn't zoom in more than I normally do.
>
> As has been stated elsewhere, the PDF format can be prepared for various
>presentations, one being for say a CD manual with high quality full spectrum
>and size color pictures and maxed pixels per inch/centimeter type/font, and
>a web presentation which uses lower quality [and usually smaller] images
>and type. Its really difficult to tell much of a difference when properly
>prepared by the PDF creation application [which does that modification
>during the creation format], and viewed on your desktop/monitor.. Were you
>perhaps to expand those two different sized PDFs to say, a wall sized
>presentation [or a 24 inch or larger display], then the differing quality
>would likely be markedly noticeable.

Thanks to all of you. I'm cutting away the case of my monitor in a
few minutes to enlarge it to 24 inches, for testing your suggestion,
so I wanted to write before I have to go off-line.

If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM

 

[MEB]

hehe, okay, so you've never done a presentation like that.. got it... oh,
make sure those corners are square when you cut that monitor apart

I suppose I should add another potential to the mix, there may be
additional inclusions which you have yet to use or locate in the larger PDF,
such as enhanced help, Java script or other...

--

MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
_________


"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:t4ser3pp4q01cr41sj2kuakeq7oqk90ork@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:10:30 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >
| >"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
| >news:5a8er3tp03crph6df0f5hj4nhd94k78k8s@4ax.com...
| >| Don't know where else to discuss this, because afaik there id no adobe
| >| or pdf newsgroup.
| >|
| >| I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the owners
| >| manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.
| >|
| >| Looking for later software, I went to their website and downloaded the
| >| manual, which was 2 megs.
| >|
| >| Strangely, they look identical, each 68 pages, and when I alt-tab from
| >| one to the other in Acrobat, I can't see any difference in quality.
| >|
| >| Anyone have experience with this.
| >|
| To Thanatoid, No, I didn't zoom in more than I normally do.
| >
| > As has been stated elsewhere, the PDF format can be prepared for various
| >presentations, one being for say a CD manual with high quality full
spectrum
| >and size color pictures and maxed pixels per inch/centimeter type/font,
and
| >a web presentation which uses lower quality [and usually smaller] images
| >and type. Its really difficult to tell much of a difference when properly
| >prepared by the PDF creation application [which does that modification
| >during the creation format], and viewed on your desktop/monitor.. Were
you
| >perhaps to expand those two different sized PDFs to say, a wall sized
| >presentation [or a 24 inch or larger display], then the differing quality
| >would likely be markedly noticeable.
|
| Thanks to all of you. I'm cutting away the case of my monitor in a
| few minutes to enlarge it to 24 inches, for testing your suggestion,
| so I wanted to write before I have to go off-line.
|
| If you are inclined to email me
| for some reason, remove NOPSAM

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

All kinds of embedded crap... PDFs are *much* worse than JPGs... Worse than
anything I can think of. You just rake up the contents of the desk (the
"project"), pack it all into a box and squeeze hard.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23LcxlMQcIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> hehe, okay, so you've never done a presentation like that.. got it... oh,
> make sure those corners are square when you cut that monitor apart
>
> I suppose I should add another potential to the mix, there may be
> additional inclusions which you have yet to use or locate in the larger
> PDF,
> such as enhanced help, Java script or other...
>
> --
>
> MEB
> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> _________
>
>
> "mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:t4ser3pp4q01cr41sj2kuakeq7oqk90ork@4ax.com...
> | On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:10:30 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>
> | wrote:
> |
> | >
> | >
> | >"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> | >news:5a8er3tp03crph6df0f5hj4nhd94k78k8s@4ax.com...
> | >| Don't know where else to discuss this, because afaik there id no
> adobe
> | >| or pdf newsgroup.
> | >|
> | >| I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the owners
> | >| manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.
> | >|
> | >| Looking for later software, I went to their website and downloaded
> the
> | >| manual, which was 2 megs.
> | >|
> | >| Strangely, they look identical, each 68 pages, and when I alt-tab
> from
> | >| one to the other in Acrobat, I can't see any difference in quality.
> | >|
> | >| Anyone have experience with this.
> | >|
> | To Thanatoid, No, I didn't zoom in more than I normally do.
> | >
> | > As has been stated elsewhere, the PDF format can be prepared for
> various
> | >presentations, one being for say a CD manual with high quality full
> spectrum
> | >and size color pictures and maxed pixels per inch/centimeter type/font,
> and
> | >a web presentation which uses lower quality [and usually smaller]
> images
> | >and type. Its really difficult to tell much of a difference when
> properly
> | >prepared by the PDF creation application [which does that modification
> | >during the creation format], and viewed on your desktop/monitor.. Were
> you
> | >perhaps to expand those two different sized PDFs to say, a wall sized
> | >presentation [or a 24 inch or larger display], then the differing
> quality
> | >would likely be markedly noticeable.
> |
> | Thanks to all of you. I'm cutting away the case of my monitor in a
> | few minutes to enlarge it to 24 inches, for testing your suggestion,
> | so I wanted to write before I have to go off-line.
> |
> | If you are inclined to email me
> | for some reason, remove NOPSAM
>
>

 

[thanatoid]

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
news:OkNeVwWcIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

> All kinds of embedded crap... PDFs are *much* worse than
> JPGs... Worse than anything I can think of. You just rake
> up the contents of the desk (the "project"), pack it all
> into a box and squeeze hard.

Do you have ANY idea of what the PDF format is actually about
and how it is constructed? To even compare it to a JPG is beyond
absurd.

I know everyone, myself included, occasionally talks about
things we shouldn't, but one really should at least have a hint
of a shadow of a clue before opening one's mouth.

You know I tend to be slightly, shall we say, ehm, cynical about
things, let alone companies like Adobe (and MS -) but PDF is a
brilliant invention that never ceases to astound me and you
should read up a little on it instead of saying really stupid
things.

I stopped using Acrobat ages ago because of the ridiculous bloat
and clunkiness. I use FoxIt Reader. But I am talking about the
FORMAT here, and feel that it is possibly Adobe's greatest
contribution.



--
"As you know, it is considered bad form to discuss the latest
news with persons from the beyond."
Karel Capek

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:48:25 -0500, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>Don't know where else to discuss this, because afaik there id no adobe
>or pdf newsgroup.
>
>I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the owners
>manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.
>
>Looking for later software, I went to their website and downloaded the
>manual, which was 2 megs.
>
>Strangely, they look identical, each 68 pages, and when I alt-tab from
>one to the other in Acrobat, I can't see any difference in quality.
>
>Anyone have experience with this.

Some PDFs are text documents, others are scanned documents. The latter
are much larger. You can easily determine which format you have by
clicking Select Text or Select Image and then trying to drag a box
around some portion of the document. I don't know if this accounts for
your observations, though.

You may find this reference helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_document_format

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:48:25 -0500, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the owners
>manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.
>
>Looking for later software, I went to their website and downloaded the
>manual, which was 2 megs.

Just to put things in perspective, here is the King James Bible, a
text document, in various formats.

http://www.1337bible.com/Bible/kjv12.zip (1.4MB)

http://patriotnet/users/bmcgin/kjv12.txt (4.8MB)

http://www.davince.com/download/kjvbible.pdf (2.6MB)

Obviously the PDF format is compressed (in this example), but not as
much as the ZIP format.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

PDF compression and ZIP compression aren't really similar. Like JPG, PDF
compression looks at the objects it contains -- text, images, fonts, TOC
(with thumbnails or not), and a bunch of other stuff you can put into a PDF
package. Many of those objects can be compressed or not, using lossy
algorithms that aren't applied to generic compression.. But whether you
compress those items or not, the entire package can then be compressed using
generic methods like those of WinZip, etc. The wealth of possibilities means
that you seldom end up with the same exact size, or even approximately the
same place.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com


You seem to think that comparable amounts or text
"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:1bojr3t2i437eeq8n04eg0ue4ibnf4vha5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:48:25 -0500, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> put
> finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>I bought something that came with a CD and on it was the owners
>>manual, which was a 9 meg pdf file.
>>
>>Looking for later software, I went to their website and downloaded the
>>manual, which was 2 megs.
>
> Just to put things in perspective, here is the King James Bible, a
> text document, in various formats.
>
> http://www.1337bible.com/Bible/kjv12.zip (1.4MB)
>
> http://patriotnet/users/bmcgin/kjv12.txt (4.8MB)
>
> http://www.davince.com/download/kjvbible.pdf (2.6MB)
>
> Obviously the PDF format is compressed (in this example), but not as
> much as the ZIP format.
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> --
> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[thanatoid]

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in
news:O3etEtwcIHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

> PDF compression and ZIP compression aren't really similar.

<SNIP>

Gary, stop embarrassing yourself and read up on the PDF format.
Even the Wikipedia entry should give you some idea. Read it
twice if necessary.


--
WARNING!!! "thanatoid" is not a real being and in particular
is missing key components that result in his not being human at
all. He has exhibited plenty of anti-human behavior in these
groups. Agree with him on specific issues if you must, but don't
fall into the trap of thinking he's a "kindred spirit". He WILL
turn on you and injury may result.

Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

(Gary appears regularly on
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion. Spelling errors
corrected. Permission to use requested and ignored, interpreted
as indifference. t.)

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:22:55 -0800, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>PDF compression and ZIP compression aren't really similar. Like JPG, PDF
>compression looks at the objects it contains -- text, images, fonts, TOC
>(with thumbnails or not), and a bunch of other stuff you can put into a PDF
>package. Many of those objects can be compressed or not, using lossy
>algorithms that aren't applied to generic compression.. But whether you
>compress those items or not, the entire package can then be compressed using
>generic methods like those of WinZip, etc. The wealth of possibilities means
>that you seldom end up with the same exact size, or even approximately the
>same place.

Perhaps compressing the OP's two PDFs may reveal something about their
content. If we simplify things by assuming that the documents contain
compressible text and incompressible graphics, plus overhead, then one
would expect that the majority of the content would be graphical. If
so, then ZIPping the PDF files should not dramatically decrease their
sizes. It would be interesting if the files decreased in size by a
similar absolute amount. This would suggest that they had the same
amount of text content.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Can't assume any such thing. I can take the same text-only document and,
using WinZip,create all kinds of different sized compressed files, based
upon the amount of compression chosen. In the case at hand, it makes more
sense to compress PDFs little or at all when storing on a CD. The more the
compression, the longer it takes to read. Whereas web download suggests you
want max compression.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:jevor3p07aqcfsena828jgf3ug4fk03o9h@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:22:55 -0800, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> put
> finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>PDF compression and ZIP compression aren't really similar. Like JPG, PDF
>>compression looks at the objects it contains -- text, images, fonts, TOC
>>(with thumbnails or not), and a bunch of other stuff you can put into a
>>PDF
>>package. Many of those objects can be compressed or not, using lossy
>>algorithms that aren't applied to generic compression.. But whether you
>>compress those items or not, the entire package can then be compressed
>>using
>>generic methods like those of WinZip, etc. The wealth of possibilities
>>means
>>that you seldom end up with the same exact size, or even approximately the
>>same place.
>
> Perhaps compressing the OP's two PDFs may reveal something about their
> content. If we simplify things by assuming that the documents contain
> compressible text and incompressible graphics, plus overhead, then one
> would expect that the majority of the content would be graphical. If
> so, then ZIPping the PDF files should not dramatically decrease their
> sizes. It would be interesting if the files decreased in size by a
> similar absolute amount. This would suggest that they had the same
> amount of text content.
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> --
> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.