Difference in generated PDF file size between distiller 6.0 and 10.0

Hi,
we are currently using Distiller server 6.0.1 on Windows server 2003 to convert PS to PDF, we want to upgrade our operating system to Windows server 2008 R2 but distiller server is not supported on this,
so we are evaluating Acrobat distiller 10 which comes along with Acrobat pro x but we noticed some slight difference in the generated PDF file size, for the same PS the distiller server 6.0 generated PDF
file size of 55 KB whereas Acrobat distiller 10 generated PDF file is 53 KB. The output looks same but wondering whether is it safe to continue further with the file size difference, it would be good
if you could provide some insight into why the file sizes are different between these two versions.
Thanks,
Anand

LiveCycle PDF Generator is the successor to Distiller Server
Modules | Adobe LiveCycle Enterprise Suite 4

Similar Messages

Trimming Designer generated PDF file size.

I recently had a PDF generated in Acrobat that I downloaded from Adobe. I opened this file in Designer, made no changes, and re-saved the PDF. The file size went from 60k to over 600k. I understand that Designer and Acrobat use two totally different engines for generating PDF's, but what possible explanation is there for the enormous file size difference? Does anyone know of a utility to trim the file size of designer generated PDF's?

There is another post by Jennifer Manarang who had the same issues and she found her solution. You can take a look at this post to see if it helps.
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bba7a73
also, posted by Sriniva Surapaneni.
Srinivas Surapaneni, "increasing the size when unlocking" #, 14 Jul 2005 7:08 pm

Using Examine Document Remove increases pdf file size !

Hi,
I have Adobe Acrobat Pro v9.3.0
I've been editing a lot of scanned .pdfs - rotating and cropping pages.
All this has previously worked fine with v8 but now I find that Acrobat 9 is increasing the .pdf file size after using Examine Document and clicking Remove
For example:
original file: 16,861 Kbytes
file after cropping 74 pages (from A4 to A5): 16,879 Kbytes
file after running Examine Document > Remove cropped metadata : 79,914 Kbytes !!!
With Acrobat 8 this process would normally have halved the file size.
Am I now doing something wrong ??
Thanks in advance.

Hello - This problem is still here !
Acrobat 9 Pro version 9.4.2
I've got a .pdf created by an agency (so not a scanned image) which I want to make as small as possible for emailing to hundreds of people (I'll attach it if possible somehow ?)
I open it up when it's 331Kb
Click Document > Examine Document
Check the Metadata and Deleted/Cropped items
Click Remove
Click File > Save As and hey presto, the new file with all that stuff supposedly removed is 2,588 Kb
Surely I'm not the only one who's bothered about .pdf file size ?

File size comparisons, InDesign CS3, CS4 and CS5?

Hi, all.
It seems there was a trend for several major releases where each time Adobe released a new version of InDesign and InCopy, average file sizes grew by 20% or so from the old release to the new release, at least back in the older CS days. Has this trend continued, such that file sizes in CS4 are substantially larger than file sizes from CS3, and CS5 files are substantially larger than those from CS4?
Adobe, of course, wants to keep writing functionality that will keep the user community coming back to buy in to upgrades. The added functionality sometimes comes at a cost beyond the price tag. If file sizes are larger in a newer version, then page saves over a network or to a database are likely to be slower, and user productivity takes a hit while users are waiting for files to be saved.
Has anyone done any testing to build the "same" page in multiple versions of InDesign to understand what the effect is on the file sizes? I'm specifically interested in the file sizes between InDesign CS3, CS4 and CS5. To be meaningful, the test page would have to be at least moderately complex, with a couple of photos, multiple text elements and so forth. By "same," the page wouldn't take advantage of new functionality in newer versions but would be saved as a native page of the current version, though the file sizes may be bloated by the new functionality like it or not.
If you've done any testing along these lines, I'd like to hear more about it.
Thanks.
Mark

The overall structure of ID's files have been exactly the same for -- as far as I can see back -- CS. No change at all, in there.
There have been significant additions to the 'global' spaces; stuff like InCopy user data, table styles, object styles, and cross references. Each of these add a major chunk of data to each file, whether you use it or not, plus a few bytes per object (again, whether you use them or not -- ID also needs to know where you did not use them, that's why). I think these might be the main source of 'global' file size increase (a single object style in one of my files, for example, eats up a healthy chunk of 11,482 bytes).
For the rest, all new stuff like 'span columns' is a handful of bytes per paragraph style. Tracking changes may very well double the size of text runs -- but 1 character takes up 1 byte of storage (plus perhaps some overhead of indicating its 'tracking' status). Any single measurement unit always uses 8 bytes at least (for example, the left inset for a column span -- even if it's not used, or set to 0pt).
I think we're talking about a couple of K's here (oh -- perhaps a max of a hundred or so), in a file format that has been designed around the concept of "disk pages", each 4K big, meaning that sometimes adding one single character to a text box increases the file size by 4 K.
Your idea of comparing the size of a file created in CS3 against the same saved as CS4 and as CS5 is certainly feasible -- I might try it some time, just to confirm it's purely the extra 'new objects' data that accounts for the size increase and to confirm my guesstimates of the number of Ks involved.

Difference in file size between EM Export and Export using cmd.....

Hi ,
I use the following command in a command prompt to export a schema....
C:\oracle\product\10.2.0\database10g\BIN\exp.exe system/*****@local FILE=C:\FILES.DMP ROWS=Y OWNER=USER_DB LOG=C:\TEST.LOG
which produces a file around 900KB.
When i exported on the same database , the same dataschema , both the data and the db objects ... using the EM the file produced was around 4000KB.....
Why is this difference.....????
I noticed in the log file of the exported file using EM some additional info... such as :
'estimated USER_DB.TABLE_NAME 64KB'
Can this info justify the difference in file size between the two methods..????
Note: I use OraDb 10g v.2
thanks a lot
Simon

The export done from EM is from Data Pump export.
The manual export you did is original export.
Try do a manual data pump export using expdp and compare the size.

Elements 4 Slide Show PDF File Size

My a 36-slide show with music ends up as a 6.76 MB PDF file. Are there techniques for reducing the file size?
My attempts have had mystifying results. I fould that 2 of the original images were multi-megabyte BMP files, so I replaced them one-by-one with much smaller JPGs, and made PDFs after each step. (Miraculously, when I edited the original photos, the edits automatically flowed down into the slide show images.)
When I made the replacements and created new PDFs, the size didn't shrink accordingly. It appears that Elements makes its own JPGs from the photos in the slide show, so the size of the original doesn't matter.
But replacing the first big file with a smaller one slightly INCREASED the size of the PDF, from 6.76 MB to 6.79. Replacing the second one increased it again from 6.79 to 6.80. Small changes, but mysterious.
BTW, taking out the music (built-in looping audio from Elements) reduced the file size from 6.76 to 5.87 MB.
Are there other ways to reduce the size of the PDF file?

Yep, I know this is user-to-user. I've gotten very good answers here, too.
I experimented with the "slide resolution" (or whatever the name of it is). There wasn't much difference in file size between 800x600 and 1024x768, and I couldn't see much difference on the screen. Fonts seemed less jazzy with 1024x768, but it wasn't night and day.
File size ballooned when I went to the next higher resolution. I think the visual quality improved, too, but I can't be sure.
Looks like the higer resolution settings might be good if one distributed the slide show on CD.

PDF File Size - any way to compress further?

We have are using the Crystal for .NET export method to export a report to a .pdf file, and are having an issue with the pdf file size on a report that contains images. The images are stored in a SQL2005 database as blob or varbinary(max). The report executes a stored procedure that selects data (including images) to produce a quotation. There are input parms to decide which images to print (for example A, B or both A&B). Both types of images can appear at the line level on the quotation. Type A images print in the main report, Type B images are in a subreport. Both the main report & subreport execute a stored procedure to select an image type.
Our issue, when both Type A and B image is selected to print on a 293 line quote. The PDF file size is 44.23MB
When Type A only is selected, the PDF file size is 2.64MB
When Type B only is selected, the PFD file size is 43.95MB.
There are more Type B images that would print at the line level than Type A, but is there any way to compress this down further as it is too large to email.

You mention that you are using Crystal for .NET, but not what version; CR for .NET 2003, 2005, 2008. 2010?
Applying the latest fixes for the correct version of CR would be the first thing to do.
Next, I'd have a close look at image B as it appears to be the one adding the most "bulk". How is this image different from image A?
General tips re. images:
Save the files a BMPs.
When .jpg image is inserted into Crystal Reports it is converted into bitmap format and as the result of the conversion the report may loose some quality, scale and other issues may arise... E.g.; Crystal Reports is not so good a graphics management tool
When an image is saved as a .bmp, then there is no conversion required and thus the quality of the image should be preserved.
Best practice: save the image with high resolution and required size as a .bmp format then insert this image into Crystal Reports.
Resize the image to the smallest possible size and downgrade the DPI to 72. This will ensure your image is as small as possible and Crystal Reports will have to put in the least amount of work to display it.
Have a look ar KB [1241630 - Exporting a Crystal report (XI) to PDF generates a big PDF file|http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/com.sap.km.cm.docs/oss_notes_boj/sdn_oss_boj_bi/sap(bD1lbiZjPTAwMQ==)/bc/bsp/spn/scn_bosap/notes%7B6163636573733d36393736354636443646363436353344333933393338323636393736354637333631373036453646373436353733354636453735364436323635373233443330333033303331333233343331333633333330%7D.do]. This KB, may apply to your version of CR, or not. In any case, you will have to use the KB as a guide and determine what the appropriate registry entry would be for your version of CR.
One more thing. Many people like to use jpg files as they are smaller than bmp files. However, as far as Crystal Reports is concerned, this is inconsequential. The report file will be the same size if a file is inserted as a jpg or a bmp. This is due to the jpg conversion to bmp Crystal Reports does internally.
Ludek
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/SAPCRNetSup
Got Enhancement ideas? Try the [SAP Idea Place|https://ideas.sap.com/community/products_and_solutions/crystalreports]

Unable to generate PDF files

D:\dzbat\bin>genpdf
D:\dzbat\bin>javadoc -doclet com.sun.tools.doclets.mif.MIFDoclet -docletpath d:\
mifdoclet1.2\lib\mifdoclet.jar -J-Xmx20M -batch dzbatcher -print pdf -d d:\lsmap
isericsson\docs -sourcepath d:\lsmapisericsson com.mahindrabt.lsm
Loading source files for package com.mahindrabt.lsm...
Constructing Javadoc information...
MIF Doclet version 1.2 beta 2 (build date: 09 Aug 2002)
I installed mifdoclet1.2 and DZbatcher and tried to generate PDF file with the following batch file
javadoc -doclet com.sun.tools.doclets.mif.MIFDoclet -docletpath d:\mifdoclet1.2\lib\mifdoclet.jar -J-Xmx20M -batch dzbatcher -print pdf -d d:\lsmapisericsson\docs -sourcepath d:\lsmapisericsson com.mahindrabt.lsm
It gives the following output and does not genrate the PDF file and does not give any error. Is there any problem with my batch file? Please help me out from this.
Generating d:\lsmapisericsson\docs\mif\overview.mif...
Using default stylemap file...
Template Used: d:\lsmapisericsson\docs\mif\template.mif
Using default batchmap file...
Building tree for all the packages and classes...
Generating d:\lsmapisericsson\docs\fm\package-list...
Generating d:\lsmapisericsson\docs\mif\com.mahindrabt.lsm.mif...
Generating default overview page...
Generating d:\lsmapisericsson\docs\mif\almanac.mif...
Generating d:\lsmapisericsson\docs\mif\api.book.mif...
Generating d:\lsmapisericsson\docs\mif\mif-to-fm.batch...
Executing: dzbatcher -makername framemaker d:\lsmapisericsson\docs\mif\mif-to-fm
.batch...
Regards
Tushar

I see no problem with your batch file, and the messages
proceed properly. To troubleshoot this further, I suggest
you read the email (currently adjacent) titled:
"Error using MIF doclet to create PDFs".
It describes several different approaches, including
generating PS and using Distiller to generate PDF,
or trying dzbatcher with -v option to echo each
command to see where it stops.
Please let us know your results, as this seems to be
a common problem.
-Doug Kramer
Javadoc team

PDF file size too large

Hi,
I have a report (6i and 9Ids) which contains an image (stored as a blob in the database (8i)). The size of the image in the database (and as a file) is just 750k. The image is sized to fit on to the A4 report page. If I set the desformat of this report to PDF the resulting PDF output file is 10mb in size. I need to make this report available over the web so this is too large. Has anyone got any ideas as to reducing the output file size?
I have tried the pdfcomp report parameter with no joy.
Cheers
Andy

Hi Andy,
The image you are using might be a JPEG image. In 6i and 9i, while generating the PDF file, Oracle Reports always converts the image to GIF and embed it. This image type conversion increases the file size of the outputimage and hence PDF file size increases. This is fixed in Oracle Reports 10g.
In Oracle Reports 10g, you can select the outputimageformat based on your need, using either:
1. commandline: OUTPUTIMAGEFORMAT
(or)
2. environment variable: REPORTS_OUTPUTIMAGEFORMAT
If your image in the database is a JPEG image, set the outputimageformat to JPEG. Hence, there will not be any image type conversion and the PDF file will be very small.
Please refer to the Publishing Reports manual to know more about the usage of these commandline/environment variable.
Links:
http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10464_01/bi.904/b10314/pbr_cla.htm#644163
http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10464_01/bi.904/b10314/pbr_rfap.htm#644448
Thanks,
Regards,
Siva B

Reduce PDF File Size - any ideas?

Hi all,
I have a C++/C# programs that generates PDF's in Adobe Reader using Infragistics. This is a recent change from using VS View as our old method of illustrating - we now use Infragistics. This has resulted in our PDF File sizes almost doubling due to us now using Bookmarks within the PDFs and also having to embed the fonts. There are some pictures used but these are already very small so they are not the issue. I was wondering does anyone have any ideas of how we could possibly reduce the size again or any possible work arounds.
Any help would be great.
Colly (Ireland)

Where do these EPS files come from Photoshop or Illustrator?
Illustrator
There may be nothing wrong with EPS files technically, they are considered archaic in a modern workflow. Best to save as a .ai with pdf compatible file - or to save them as PDF x4a with Illustrator Editing Capabilities enabled.
But I don't think there's any need to run out and convert all your files - perhaps keep it in mind going forward.
Photoshop
EPS is really not the best format. If it's pure raster then PSD or TIFF would be preferred format, if it's Raster + Vector Shapes, Vector Masks, Text Layers then PDF is preferred over EPS (with photoshop editing capabilities enabled).
File sizes react differently depending on the content on the choice of compression. Heavy Vector files from Illustrator can cause Huge file sizes in PDFs.
See this article (and more importantly the comments!)
http://indesignsecrets.com/creating-smaller-pdfs-from-a-vector-dense-book.php
If you can provide a bit more info on your workflow and what settings you are using to save it would be great.

Question about reducing PDF file size on export

I have a large file that is generates a PDF about 75MB when exported with the "[High Quality Print]" preset. However, I can reduce the size down to to under 5MG in Acrobat if I use the Tools>Flattener Preview>[Medium Resolution] setting (image attached). Is there a way to generate this smaller file directly from InDesign? I couldn't figure out how to do this with InDesign's Flattener Preview or Export options, but it is very likely that I missed something.

Eugene Tyson wrote:
When you choose Smallest File size, it is still using the PDF 1.6 setting.
Change this to Acrobat 4 (PDF 1.3) this will automagically flatten the PDF - which means you shouldn't have to do it in Acrobat.
That should get you a nice small file size, I believe.
Flattening transparency in InDesign will not necessarily yield a smaller PDF file size. Transparency flattening will not automatically convert placed vector artwork to raster images unless that vector artwork is actually involved with transparency. And even then, whether you end up with a smaller file depends on a number of factors.
If the reason for the very large file size is indeed very complex vector artwork and you are willing to sacrifice quality, conversion of such vector artwork to raster might yield a significantly smaller exported PDF file. To accomplish that conversion, I would personally suggest converting the most offensive (in terms of file size and complexity) of such files in Illustrator (assuming that they were .AI files) and exporting them as .TIF files (to avoid the potential imaging artifacts of JPEG compression).
- Dov

InDesign Transparency Effect vs. pdf file size

I have an Interactive pdf that was created from InDesign. There is "inner glow" is an effect style created box style. This box style is used a number of times in the 30 page document. The glow is a gradient from black to transparent which looks like an inner shadow for the boxes (sample attached). When I generate the pdf file, size is about 12 Mgb, too large for the target audience.
When I alter the style in InDesign to say something simple like a 10% black solid fill, the pdf file size decreases to about 1 Mgb.
Looked into "flattening transparency" options but this creates pdf that has none of the interactive buttons and links that are required.
Really would like to avoid creating these boxes in photoshop since there are about 40 different sizes of the box.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!

For some reason I can't find reply on Forums site, so replying to this
email
Exporting an Interactive pdf using the attached (15.8) jpegs settings
creates a file that is 15.8 Mgb.
Exporting an Interactive pdf using the attached (14.5) jpegs settings
creates a file that is 15.8 Mgb.
Any ideas??? Thanks.

Interactive PDF file size

Hi all,
Is there a way I can reduce an interactive PDF file size. As per my understanding it can be done with ES2 PDF generator in AdminUI, but I am looking to do this in the process(work flow).
Any suggestions?
Many thanks,
Tanmay

Using 72dpi instead of the presets only reduced the file size by a couple hundred kilobytes.
Could it have to do with my buttons on the master pages? I've had real problems with them not working across the various documents that get combined in book form.

Financial Reports PDF File Size

We recently patched from 11.1.2 to 11.1.2.2 and we have noticed that the PDFs generated from Financial reporting have a file size significantly larger (4x) then when they were done with the previous release. Nothing has changed on the reports. Is there some configuration that can be done to get the PDF file size back to where it was previously ? From Financial reports Help-> About we are on version 11.1.2.362.

11.1.2.2 come with a new print engine, which does your PDF looks different in size. You may have change the settings by selecting the "Auto Size" option in the Grid Poperties and test
Rgds

Problems reading generated pdf-files

Hi all,
I have problems reading generated pdf-files from
Report Builder 6.0.8.11.3
An error-message occurs when opening the pdf with
Adobe Acrobat 5.0.1:
... problem 110 and after moving in an empty pdf-document
the messages:
- too few operands
- an unrecognized token
I think the solution must be very simple, but the docu and
other info resources provide nothing aboutthis issue.
Greetings,
Bernhard

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by the oracle reports team:
hello,
there are no known problems with reading reports PDFs with later Acrobat Readers. maybe your file is somehow corrupt.
regards,
the oracle reports team<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I had to install a local printer, the network printer is not appropriate here. After that, everything is fine :-)),
Greetings,
Bernhard
null

Difference in generated PDF file size between distiller 6.0 and 10.0

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for