>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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >