From: ronald heller (ronald@salience.nl)
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 03:09:32 PDT
Dear reader
The issue raised by my collegue Ronald is imho an important one, and I
cannot agree (yet) with the statement made by David Tolpin. He states, if I
understand correctly, that downscaling done by the PDF renderer is not
something you'd choose because of the poor quality. The solution implied
here is that you should downscale outside of the PDF renderer (and the PDF
generator for that matter), and then include the image at 100% unscaled.
This is highly unpractical: Consider allowing a publication to be created
for and rendered on 7 paper sizes (a4, a3, letter, etc., at the convenience
of the client): this would require 7 'versions' of the same images when
e.g. page width is different in all cases! FO-based rendering would become
very expensive indeed.
Images are created irrespective of the exact print medium (paper size,
location on page, etc.). Especially in a POD environment you require the
PDF generator to know what the exact dimensions of the rendering rectangle
on page are or can be (which it actually knows!), and pass those dimensions
along with the image content. There is no way you can do this outside the
PDF generator, unless you specify all current idents, borders, line
thicknesses, margins, what have you (all of which play a role in
determining the image's size on paper) and add them all up, in advance.
This 1/ is very cumbersome, 2/ actually extends the functionality of the
PDF generator, and 3/ fails to work in situations where other measurements
are calculated by the PDF generator itself (relative measurements and the
like).
So, as far as I can see the XEP solution would not suffice for realistic
print requirements due to limitations described....
Willing to learn,
as ever,
arjan
-------------------
By using the Service, you expressly agree to these Terms of Service http://www.renderx.com/tos.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 08:41:28 PST