Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NTO] Create Universally Readable PDFs

Expand Messages
  • Ray Shapp
    Hi Don, Thanks for the reply. I ve been using PDFCrerator for years with no complaint. Like reDirect, it also acts
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Don,

      Thanks for the reply.

      I've been using PDFCrerator
      <http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/>for years with no
      complaint. Like reDirect, it also acts as a selectable
      printer from within Word.

      I did read that the standard for PDF files has changed several times over
      the years. So my question is directed to Notetabbers who may have
      experienced comparability issues with PDF files and who have solved the
      problem. Prior to the current instance, I always thought the PDF standard
      was always backwards compatible.

      Plain text won't work because the file is a color flyer with graphics.

      Thanks again.

      Ray Shapp


      On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Don <don@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > I use PDF reDirect. It is essentially a printer to pdf format. Like it
      > a lot. Nobody has ever claimed that they can't open my stuff.
      >
      > In his case copy and paste plain text.
      >
      >
      > On 1/31/2012 3:20 PM, Ray Shapp wrote:
      > > My question: do you have experience with an application that will create
      > > PDF files from DOC files that can be read on PCs by older versions of
      > Adobe
      > > Reader as well as more current versions?
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ray Shapp
      Thanks for the reply, Axel. Ray Shapp ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 31, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for the reply, Axel.

        Ray Shapp


        On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Ray Shapp wrote:
        > > He is unwilling to upgrade the free Adobe Reader or
        > > any other part of his setup.
        >
        > This one I can empathise with. I too object to permanent updating and
        > new for being new's sake when my existing setup does all I want and the
        > new version has no conceivable benfit for my needs. This is why I
        > customarily write PDF 1.2 and occasionally test with the Adobe reader
        > version 3 under Windows 3.11.
        >
        > Your example is not bad though, it is version 1.4 for Reader 5.0. You
        > might have made the huge image a bit smaller at no perceivable loss, but
        > that's not the issue here. You might try your member on
        > <http://berger-odenthal.de/upload/V12.pdf>. I ran my batch "mk2" over
        > it:
        >
        > ----------------------------------------------
        > @ echo off
        > iff "%1" == "" then
        > echo Parameters: Source [Destination without EXT] /or/ ALL
        > GOTO finish
        > endiff
        > set path=F:\Winutil\ghost\gs8.71\lib;F:\Winutil\ghost\gs8.71\bin;%path%
        > iff "%1" = "all" then
        > REM echo %path%
        > echo process all
        > mkdir V12
        > FOR %d IN (*.pdf) DO CALL ps2pdf12.bat %d V12\%d
        > else
        > REM echo on
        > REM echo %path%
        > call ps2pdf12.bat %1 %@IF["%2 " GT " ",%temp%\%2.pdf,%temp%\12-%1]
        > endiff
        > :finish
        > pause Fertig - press a key
        > ----------------------------------------------
        >
        > The batch is written for 4DOS and uses ghostscript.
        >
        >
        > > Prior to this instance, it was my belief that PDF files were
        > > universally readable by all versions of Adobe Reader.
        > > My question: do you have experience with an application that
        > > will create PDF files from DOC files
        >
        > New versions introduced new features, some of them useful. I convert
        > Microsoft to PDF with openOffice, but that too only writes version 1.4,
        > so the tool of choice is ghostscript. You can get a graphic interface
        > through Ghostview, but it is not particularly easy to use and I find the
        > command line much easier.
        >
        > By the way: spaces in filenames are evil, especially when using command
        > line tools. Don't do it.
        >
        > Axel
        >
        > --
        > Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
        > Johann-H�ck-Str. 14 Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
        > D-51519 Odenthal-Heide eMail: Axel-Berger@...
        > Deutschland (Germany) http://berger-odenthal.de
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Axel Berger
        ... I m curious: Can your member read my version 1.2 file? If so, do you need any help in setting up ghostscript? N.B: The newer is always better brigade
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 6, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Ray Shapp wrote:
          > Thanks for the reply, Axel.

          I'm curious: Can your member read my version 1.2 file? If so, do you
          need any help in setting up ghostscript?

          N.B: The "newer is always better" brigade chide me for writing that old
          format, noting that the newer ones can result in smaller files. They're
          right, I've seen differences up to 30 %. On the other hand, although my
          conversion to a lower version sometimes makes files bigger, in other
          cases filesizes may be halved. Far more bloat is due to sloppy
          programming than to outdated procedures and going for the newest and
          brightest files size tends to be the one thing losing its importance
          fastest.

          Axel

          --
          Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
          Johann-Häck-Str. 14 Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
          D-51519 Odenthal-Heide eMail: Axel-Berger@...
          Deutschland (Germany) http://berger-odenthal.de
        • Ray Shapp
          Hi Axel and others, I discovered that the club member who was unable to read the PDF file wasn t allowing sufficient time for the file to download. Actual size
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Axel and others,

            I discovered that the club member who was unable to read the PDF file
            wasn't allowing sufficient time for the file to download. Actual size is
            878KB. In one attempt, he downloaded about 600KB. In another try, he
            downloaded a little more. No version of the Adobe Reader will render either
            of the partially downloaded files.

            <<do you need any help in setting up ghostscript?>>
            >

            In view of the fact that the problem has evaporated (I hand-delivered to
            him a complete file), I will decline your generous offer.

            Thanks again.

            Ray Shapp


            On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > Ray Shapp wrote:
            > > Thanks for the reply, Axel.
            >
            > I'm curious: Can your member read my version 1.2 file? If so, do you
            > need any help in setting up ghostscript?
            >
            > N.B: The "newer is always better" brigade chide me for writing that old
            > format, noting that the newer ones can result in smaller files. They're
            > right, I've seen differences up to 30 %. On the other hand, although my
            > conversion to a lower version sometimes makes files bigger, in other
            > cases filesizes may be halved. Far more bloat is due to sloppy
            > programming than to outdated procedures and going for the newest and
            > brightest files size tends to be the one thing losing its importance
            > fastest.
            >
            >
            > Axel
            >
            > --
            > Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
            > Johann-H�ck-Str. 14 Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
            > D-51519 Odenthal-Heide eMail: Axel-Berger@...
            > Deutschland (Germany) http://berger-odenthal.de
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Axel Berger
            ... Ah well, that leads me back to my other side remark. Try another PDF writer, OpenOffice is not bad and reads Word.doc. Looking closely your Mars image
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Ray Shapp wrote:
              > he downloaded about 600KB.

              Ah well, that leads me back to my other side remark. Try another PDF
              writer, OpenOffice is not bad and reads Word.doc.

              Looking closely your Mars image originally was rather small and low
              resolution to begin with, I'd guess something less than 40 kB. It ought
              not to add more than its original size to the resulting PDF. Could you
              make the original DOC available?

              Axel

              --
              Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
              Johann-Häck-Str. 14 Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
              D-51519 Odenthal-Heide eMail: Axel-Berger@...
              Deutschland (Germany) http://berger-odenthal.de
            • Ray Shapp
              Hi Axel, ... The original DOC file is now available at: www.asterism.org/events/Mars
              Message 6 of 12 , Feb 7, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Axel,

                <<Could you make the original DOC available?>>
                >

                The original DOC file is now available at:

                www.asterism.org/events/Mars
                2012-03-10.doc<http://www.asterism.org/events/Mars%202012-03-10.doc>

                File size is 1.1MB. Please LMK when you have downloaded it because I want
                to remove it from the website.

                Please note that this document was produced by one of the club members who
                will be presenting a lecture at the event. It is not my original work. I
                avoided making any except the most necessary changes before posting. Some
                authors have* less than full appreciation* for my help!

                Ray Shapp


                On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@...> wrote:

                > **
                >
                >
                > Ray Shapp wrote:
                > > he downloaded about 600KB.
                >
                > Ah well, that leads me back to my other side remark. Try another PDF
                > writer, OpenOffice is not bad and reads Word.doc.
                >
                > Looking closely your Mars image originally was rather small and low
                > resolution to begin with, I'd guess something less than 40 kB. It ought
                > not to add more than its original size to the resulting PDF. Could you
                > make the original DOC available?
                >
                >
                > Axel
                >
                > --
                > Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
                > Johann-H�ck-Str. 14 Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
                > D-51519 Odenthal-Heide eMail: Axel-Berger@...
                > Deutschland (Germany) http://berger-odenthal.de
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Axel Berger
                ... This is one more example that Docs don t travel, it looks much different from your original here, mostly due to a lack of fonts. Copying the image I find
                Message 7 of 12 , Feb 7, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ray Shapp wrote:
                  > File size is 1.1MB.

                  This is one more example that Docs don't travel, it looks much different
                  from your original here, mostly due to a lack of fonts. Copying the
                  image I find it is clearly blown up from a much smaller one (seemingly
                  by a factor of five). That author is obviously (searching for an
                  acceptable euphemism) less than an expert in document creation. He may
                  have picked up that graphics ought to be 300 dpi or more and has not
                  grasped that just blowing up a raster image does not raise the true
                  resolution one bit.

                  Even so, opening the Doc in OpenOffice and saving as PDF, changing
                  nothing except specifying embedding images as 90 % quality Jpeg (at 90 %
                  artefacts stay invisible to me) I come up with a PDF version 1.4 of file
                  size 165 kB.

                  I recommend ditching PDF creator and going for Open Office.

                  Axel

                  --
                  Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
                  Johann-Häck-Str. 14 Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
                  D-51519 Odenthal-Heide eMail: Axel-Berger@...
                  Deutschland (Germany) http://berger-odenthal.de
                • Ray Shapp
                  Hi Axel and others, On your advice, I have installed Open Office 3. Wow! The document renders very differently in Writer. Text boxes overlap. The graphic is
                  Message 8 of 12 , Feb 7, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Axel and others,

                    On your advice, I have installed Open Office 3.

                    Wow! The document renders very differently in Writer. Text boxes overlap.
                    The graphic is not centered. Other details that I don't see yet may have
                    changed. Such distortions will be a big problem for me because I receive
                    Word documents from many sources for posting on the website. Also, the
                    style for showing "tracked changes" differs greatly from the Microsoft
                    convention. Most of my authors use various versions of Word.

                    I am impressed, however, by the huge saving of file space in the exported
                    PDF. It is a ten to one reduction from the original Word document and a
                    five to one savings compared to the PDF I had produced using PDF creator. I
                    wonder whether this new PDF file is readable by the most current Adobe
                    Reader and earlier versions of it going back at least as far as version 6.


                    <<That author is obviously (searching for an acceptable euphemism) less
                    > than an expert in document creation>>
                    >

                    To be charitable, I'll say he is well versed in planetary science.


                    I hope no one objects to this extended conversation on this Y! group.

                    Again, thank you for your help.

                    Ray Shapp


                    On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@...> wrote:

                    > **
                    >
                    >
                    > Ray Shapp wrote:
                    > > File size is 1.1MB.
                    >
                    > This is one more example that Docs don't travel, it looks much different
                    > from your original here, mostly due to a lack of fonts. Copying the
                    > image I find it is clearly blown up from a much smaller one (seemingly
                    > by a factor of five). That author is obviously (searching for an
                    > acceptable euphemism) less than an expert in document creation. He may
                    > have picked up that graphics ought to be 300 dpi or more and has not
                    > grasped that just blowing up a raster image does not raise the true
                    > resolution one bit.
                    >
                    > Even so, opening the Doc in OpenOffice and saving as PDF, changing
                    > nothing except specifying embedding images as 90 % quality Jpeg (at 90 %
                    > artefacts stay invisible to me) I come up with a PDF version 1.4 of file
                    > size 165 kB.
                    >
                    > I recommend ditching PDF creator and going for Open Office.
                    >
                    >
                    > Axel
                    >
                    > --
                    > Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
                    > Johann-H�ck-Str. 14 Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
                    > D-51519 Odenthal-Heide eMail: Axel-Berger@...
                    > Deutschland (Germany) http://berger-odenthal.de
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Axel Berger
                    ... Yes, it s an exceptionally bad case. Mostly documents can be read without flaws, but Word is known for that problem even between different Word
                    Message 9 of 12 , Feb 7, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ray Shapp wrote:
                      > Wow! The document renders very differently in Writer.
                      > Text boxes overlap. The graphic is not centered.

                      Yes, it's an exceptionally bad case. Mostly documents can be read
                      without flaws, but Word is known for that problem even between different
                      Word installations, sometimes a different installed printer suffices. I
                      tried Microsoft Office 2003 just now, and while better it does not
                      render like your PDF.

                      Doc is a raw format for work in progress, no exchange format for
                      finished documents, but Microsoft users will never get that.

                      > I wonder whether this new PDF file is readable by the most
                      > current Adobe Reader and earlier versions of it going back at
                      > least as far as version 6.

                      An unqualified yes. It's version 1.4 for Readers 5 and up and I've never
                      found OO-written pdfs to give any trouble in any reader. The same is not
                      true for one generated by Adobe programs, like Microsoft they don't feel
                      much bound by their own documented standards.

                      Axel

                      --
                      Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 2174/ 7439 07
                      Johann-Häck-Str. 14 Fax: +49/ 2174/ 7439 68
                      D-51519 Odenthal-Heide eMail: Axel-Berger@...
                      Deutschland (Germany) http://berger-odenthal.de
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.