swftools-common
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Swftools-common] Bigger swf's coming out of pdf2swf 0.9.1


From: Chris
Subject: Re: [Swftools-common] Bigger swf's coming out of pdf2swf 0.9.1
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:00:37 +0100

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 <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden>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 <address@hidden>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 <address@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 <address@hidden>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]