PDF TO FLASH Keeping the size around 180kb

Our company has lined up to produce a number of E-Brochures
Quickly as opposed to our old method of inserting each individual
image and copy and pasting the text from PDF, we have been looking
for a way of converting page by page of a PDF file into a single
flash swf that has to be around the 180kb size, i have directly
imported a page into flash 8 then duplicated that page and put it
into the page flip component, the size of each file is 340kb and
the page flip struggles with it, i need the text to go in as text
so that it keeps its quality on the zoom and the images to all go
in in good quality also for the sake of the zoom! have tried using
indesign CS4 and that loses quality in the pictures, have tried
inseting the whole page as JPEG that loses alot of quality, have
tried these websites which do it for you, but we need to do it
ourselves so we can actually have the FLA file as we need to set it
to certain styles for other companies, have tried printing to SWF
that was just rubbish quality was worst of everything i have tired,
have tried PDF to SWF converter, that just didnt help as gave me an
swf file which when decompiled came out as rubbish aswell, now kind
of lost, if someone could help me as quick as possible, this is an
URGENT matter
Thanks for your time in reading this any help would be
greatly apriciated!
Jay

Why 180kb ?
There is NO WAY you will get your filesize to 180kb.
How pages is the PDF file ?
We may have a solution. We are currently in beta of solution
that allows you
tdo this. It will try a SWF from PDF file in vector form and
not images.
Email us on [email protected]
If you interested.
Regards
FlashJester Support Team
e. - [email protected]
w. - www.flashjester.com
DISCLAIMER:
This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and
contains
information that may be confidential and/or copyrighted. If
you are not the
intended recipient please notify the sender by reply email
and immediately
delete this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this
email by anyone
other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited.
All measures
have been taken to ensure this email is virus free - however
no warranty is
made that this email or any attachments are free of viruses.
Virus scanning
is recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.

Similar Messages

HT4489 this is ridiculous! how do you keep the size of the picture for a contact that small? it is usually a piece of a lager picture... any way to make the size of the pictures the 224 KB they want? I always thought the application cropped the picture t

this is ridiculous! how do you keep the size of the picture for a contact in the address book that small? it is usually a piece of a lager picture... any way to make the size of the pictures the 224 KB they want? I always thought the application cropped the picture to fit their requirements...
Help
Leo

Gem
Events are organised strictly on date and time, as read by iPhoto from the Exif data in the Photo. You cannot manually sort.
Create Albums. You can do much more organising with Albums, use Photos from different events, place them as you will. Best of all, Albums use no disk space at all. They simply reference the file on the Hard Disk. So a pic can be 1, 10 or 100 Albums with no wasted disk space whatever.
Regards
TD

After creating a pdf can I change the size of the font when uploading in acrobat and what version?

After creating a pdf can I change the size of the font when uploading in acrobat and what version?

What do you mean by "uploading in Acrobat"?
(Note that if you change the size of text, it won't reflow, so you end up with a mess. Answer is, probably not useful)

How to keep the size of column in column view ?

Hello,
since I don't know when, the columns in Finder windows have always the same size. If I change the size, and then close the windows, when I open a new one, the column get back to their "original size" (which is too small for my personnal use).
Here's a video to see the problem.
Is there a workaround ?
Thanks

Hold down the 'option' key when you drag the column divider. That will tell Finder to remember the preference.

Preview: Save as PDF while approximately keeping the file size ?

Hello!
I know that several good discussions took place about the way to reduce the file size when saving (as) a PDF from the application Preview.
I tried:
• the default poor quality "Reduce File Size" preset filter,
• the additional filters provided by Jérôme Colas (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6250289)
• the "Compress PDF Workflow 4.0" that reenables feature for Leopard (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/automator/compresspdfworkflow.html)
Has anyone come across a method to _keep in about the *original size*_ of the original Adobe PDF ?
When saving a 3 MB PDF with Preview, I see it increase to 80 MB, so that dramatically reducing it to 40MB is not really satisfying, is it?
Thank you in advance for any suggestion !

Bernd, thank you for your attempt to help but the option dialog windows do not contain the same options. There are numerous other posts on this forum about this issue and there is no answer. Clearly, there is an issue. I have submitted this issue to our internal help desk.

Why does PDF export not keep the layout as the indd file?

I have a 132-page book ready to upload for printing. It says in the pages panel 132 pages in 67 spreads. There are no sections, chapters or automatic page numbers. When I create a pdf, the (intentional) blank page that is supposed to be page 2 (on the left side of the first spread) moves itself to the position of page 1 (supposed to print on the right as very first printed page). This, in turn, puts page 1 on the left and pulls the rest of the pages in the book off, ruining the spreads. Any ideas as to why this is happening? Thanks!

High-Quality Print is for outputting to office printers. There are a number of Press-ready settings - ask your printer which one to use.
In the meantime: Open your mis-flowed document in Acrobat and under Page Display, see if Show Cover Page in Two Page View is checked. If not, check it and see if that fixes the problem.

How do you delete part of a PDF file and keep the rest

If I want to keep page 2 but not pages 1 or 3...how do I do that?

Possible with Adobe Acrobat, not Adobe Reader.

Save a PDF that preserves the size when opening.

I start with my photoshop file. I save as a pdf. When opening PDF it opens 2X the size of my orginal photoshop file. I then hit command 0 to see orginal size, but it still is much bigger than my photoshop file.
I would like the best viewing experinece for my PDF and I want it to open exactly the size of my photoshop file. It is annoying when it opens bigger. How do I do this?
Thank you for your help.

Well, your "Viewing size" is really an abstract idea. The size you see it on screen obviously depends on your zoom factor. In Photoshop you might view it at 100%. In Acrobat, you can't really see it at 100% pixel size. The Acrobat defaults are to open documents as continuous pages, single pages, fit page in window, maximize the width on screen etc.
Also consider that 100% pixel view in Photoshop is not 100% size in Acrobat, because Acrobat considers the size of the document in inches or cm. But 100% pixel view in PS will be the same if it's 72dpi or 300dpi. See you might have a 1000 px wide image, and in PS the 1:1 view takes up, let's say for example, almost your whole screen (if your monitor is 1280x1024). But if you image is 500dpi, Acrobat thinks that it's only 2 inches wide, and will display it very small on screen, physically about 2 inches wide.
I believe that in Acrobat you can set some document properties for initial display, but you have to do that in Acrobat, not Photoshop. I am sure of that. So you might be able to adjust it somewhat.

Can I slim down the size of the Aperture Library by moving the Preview files elsewhere?

Hi all,
I have an Aperture library of almost 20,000 photos, dating back to around 2007. Almost all the master images are stored on an external drive (backed up of course), with only my recent and 'in progress' masters being stored in the library itself. Previously I have had my library split up into one library for each year, with the older years libraries being stored on the external drive where the masters are, in order to keep the size of my 'current' library down. So my current library, stored on my internal SSD, contained only photos from this year and last year, and only a few of the masters for these images. Confusing? Sorry!
Now, I recently decided to consolidate the libraries into one huge library, because it was annoying to have to switch between libraries to find older photos when I wanted them. I did this, leaving all but the recent masters on the external drives (referenced). I thought that the size of the main library would remain reasonably sized, since there were no extra masters being moved into it. However, the library has grown massively - up to over 70GB, which is huge when you consider it's on a 128GB SSD which is also my startup drive.
I'm pretty certain the reason for the huge size increase is that the Previews for all the older images are stored in the Library file, rather than anywhere else. This makes sense - they are previews, they're supposed to be able to be viewed with the external drives disconnected. So my question is this. Am I able to change the location of the preview files to be on my OTHER internal hard drive (non-SSD, much larger), so that they're still available without the external drives, but are not cluttering up my startup drive. And, if not, what should I do!?
Thanks a lot

Glad it worked, but permit, if you will, some observations:
-- Bloated Previews are a known Aperture bug, which came and went within a few updates in Aperture 3. Getting them back to the proper size is simply a elegant step to take.
-- A Preview set to your largest screen size and a quality of 6-8 should be all but indistinguishable from the Master at 72-100 dpi screen image. (Not print resolution.) I REALLY doubt you are going to loose any quality.
-- While using a symlink to stick the Previews on a HD is clever, it may also defeat the whole purpose of using your SSD. Previews are read a lot and are, I suspect, used for all adjustments at less than full resolution. (N.B. I could be VERY wrong on this.) Thus, depending on the amount of RAM on your Mac, you could end up reading and rereading your Previews over a slower link and doing this a lot. You own use will quickly determine if this is an issue or not.
I have blathered on, at length, about what I think matters for size and speed here: https://discussions.apple.com/message/17959625#17959625. Some of this may be of use.
I went through a lot of these issues when I tried to fit everything on a 128 GB SSD, so I know some of the issues you are facing. As I noted before, you really only need a Library (minus most Masters) of about 30 GB and that is with large, high quality Previews.
I actually took the SSD out and stuck it in an ancient MacBookPro (in preparation for a trip to Blighty this summer) and have not noticed a huge drop in Aperture speed. (I do miss the speed of applications launch, restart, however.) One thing that I did find that made a small, but nice difference, was keeping all of the Masters on a separate, dedicated drive. Once defragged, etc. that was very fast. Don't know if you could achieve the same results by partitioning a larger drive, but it might well be fun to find out.
DiploStrat

Flash Gallery --- Image size

First, does anyone know of a good free program to create a
flash gallery?
I am currently using SimpleViewer and I have a question about
the size of the photos. All the pictures are different sizes and
SimpleViewer allows me to set a maxium height and width.
(maxImageWidth)
For some reason, it stretches some photos and it doesn't keep
the size of the photos (I have it set at 480 for both height and
width). I am looking for gallery that will allow me to 'auto' set
the height and width so that the size of the photos won't be
stretched out and will appear as I have uploaded them.

help

Making a 60 min vid for a 60" HDTV and want to keep file size 8 gig

hello! i'm so new at PP, so please bear with me. i'm using an assortment of swf's, mp4's and youtube vid's to make a 60 minute promotional show that will play on a 60" HDTV. my problem is, when i export it, it will be way too large to efficiently move around (thumb drives, etc.). what are the best export settings to make it still look good on this monitor, yet keep the size smaller without losing quality...thanks for this help!!

Resolution is irrelevant for filesize and the screen size on which it is displayed is equally irrelevant. However, having said that, the minimum resolution for a 60" screen is at least 1920 x 1080.
The only thing that matters for file size is number of frames in the time line and bitrate per frame.
ffff x bbbb = filesize. (number of frames x bitrate) determines filesize.

How to reduce the size of winsxs in windows 7 ultimate x64

Ok so first off there are some caveats to responding to this question
1.) Im on windows 7, so DONT refer to some "winsxs is important" vista link...
2.) i am well aware of what windows side by side is for, and appreciate dll ____ must be bad for some... but lets be honest, professional people like me know how to keep a system in shape and not remove DLL files willy nilly and should have some kind of
"i know what im doing" option
3.) i know its important system files blah blah blah
4.) i know it MUST be possible to trim this... vsp1cln.exe and compcln.exe from vista sp1 and sp2 respectively shows it CAN be done
so in light of that, as there is no vsp1cln.exe or compcln.exe included on windows 7 i need to know if they are compatible with windows 7 if i just pull down a version from vista.
if not, there must be some kind of method to reduce winsxs size... mine is currently at 6.2GB and that... frankly... is too big, i can understand a few GB worth, but 6! thats a whole windows xp installation!
now, if a utility could be written that would be detrimental to compatibility but acceptable in terms of limited damage then that would be good, perhaps removing the ability to uninstall updates if for example, your system has been stable since february
i know i wont have problems and have the retail disk if it gets fubar.
I cant see what all that folder is for... i mean if you dont want such compatibility or the ability to install extra components without finding the disk then you should be able to remove that... i dont use a lot of the server side components, so why cant
i remove those.
also winsxs uses a lot of hardlinks and junctions that are reporting hard drive usage that isnt actually used as explorer counts these files repeatedly, there must be a way to tell explorer not to count those files... it might be all well and good to say
theres 2gb not actually being used, but if windows is throwing a fit because it thinks im out of space then those 2gb might as well be 2 TB for all the use they are to me.
lets take for example the winsxs/backup folder, there are about 60% of that taken up with FONT BACKUPS... i mean SERIOUSLY! ... you backed up the FONTS!?
WHY!?!?
There must be more things like those that could go
perhaps someone could get back in touch and explain why microsoft windows is the ONLY operating system that seems to think that if it doesnt have 80 hundred million backups and spares it wont work... linux does not have this side by side thing, nor does
macosx

Okay maybe some background on the root of the problem would help.
Windows XP (and Windows 2000) used a fast and great mechanism called Hotfix Installer (Update.exe) to install updates. Updates installed in very little time. If you wanted to further reduce update times on Windows XP, you could just temporarily stop the
System Restore service and updates would install at crazy speeds. Note that this is not recommended for novice users who don't know advanced recovery methods, as some updates can sometimes cause your system to stop booting so you cannot even uninstall them.
The method the Hotfix Installer used was simple, it just installed a new version of files to be updated at %windir%\system32 and %windir%\system32\dllcache (the Windows File Protection cache). For files that were in use, a restart copied them from dllcache
to the system32 folder. This is simple file-based servicing. The hotfix installer (Update.exe) also supported various command line switches like /nobackup which means not to backup files it patches. Again, this is not recommended for novice users as some updates
can screw your system even after the comprehensive testing Microsoft does before releasing them. But if you won't be uninstalling any updates (usually one only requires uninstalling updates if they cause problems), you could save a ton of disk space by not
backing up the files it patched. The Hotfix Installer backed up files to C:\Windows\$Uninstall$KBxxxxxx folders so even if you did back up the files at install time, they could be safely deleted after a few days if no stability issues were found after using
Windows with the newest updates applied. Update.exe also supported the very important and convenient ability to slipstream a service pack or update into the original Windows setup files using the /s switch.
When Microsoft was developing Windows Vista, they realized that components had gotten too many interdepencies on each other and to service each file reliably without breaking another component that relied on it, Microsoft introduced what they called as Component
Based Servicing (CBS). You can read all about it in a much more technical way at The Servicing Guy's blog. What CBS does basically is it installs all files of the entire operating system, including all languages into C:\Windows\WinSxS and then it hard-links
files from there to C:\Windows\system32. This has the benefit of not having to insert the OS disc to add or remove any components, and some other advantages as well like offline servicing of a Windows Vista or Windows 7 image. But the design introduces a major
disadvantage of taking up a lot of hard disk space. Whenever an update is installed, it no longer installs it to C:\Windows\system32 and C:\Windows\system32\dllcache like Windows XP's hotfix installer (Update.exe) did. Instead, it updates the files in C:\Windows\WinSxS.
Now, Windows keeps multiple copies of the same file but with different version in WinSxS if it is used by more than one Windows component. The higher the number of components, that many number of times the file exists in C:\Windows\WinSxS. When a Windows Vista
update (.MSU) is installed, the components get updated, each and every one, instead of the files and the worst part is it still maintains the older superseded previous versions of components in WinSxS so the user would be able to uninstall updates. Microsoft
does say that some sort of "scavenging" or deleting older copies of components takes place but is scarce on the details. The scavenging seems to take place automatically at certain intervals in Windows 7 but not in Windows Vista. In Windows Vista, you have
to add or remove any Windows component for the scavenging to take place. And Microsoft says the scavenging will free up some disk space but in practice, on my system, I see my free disk space only decreasing on Vista as I remove or add any component. Windows
does not give the user an option to not backup the earlier versions of components like Windows XP's /nobackup switch in Hotfix Installer did. As as you install more and more updates on your system, they will take more and more disk space. This is one of the
primary reasons Windows Vista and Windows 7 are so bloated. Another reason for them being so bloated is the DriverStore that these OSes store. All drivers that are shipped with the OS and the OEM ones which you download and which are installed for a particular
system are staged in C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore. But let's not go there for now.
Now, an important thing to note is that the size of the WinSxS folder is not what Explorer or the dir command report, it is far less but is misreported by Explorer because it counts the hard links more than once when calculating size. That does not mean,
the size of WinSxS is not causing real-world disk space problems on numerous Windows Vista/7 systems in use today. Microsoft's ingenious recommendation to this problem of ever growing disk consumption is to install fewer updates to keep the size of the servicing
store under control. Of course, users cannot deny installing security updates and leave their system open to security holes. What they can do is install less optional updates, the ones that Microsoft releases on the fourth Tuesday of every month and also install
less of the hotfixes that are available by request from a Knowledge Base article. In short, you have to trade the number of bugs fixed in the OS by installing hotfixes at the cost of enormous amounts of disk space. The whole servicing stack is a total downgrade
to Windows XP's update.exe method. It causes heavy disk thrashing and slow logoffs/logons while Windows configures these updates at the Welcome Screen. Many systems are unable to boot because of failed updates. Another disadvantage of the "new" servicing stack
(and the redesigned Setup mechanism of Windows Vista) is the inability to do a true slipstream of service packs and hotfixes.
The time it takes to actually install these hotfixes online compared to Windows XP is also completely unacceptable. When you start installing an MSU update, it spends a lot of time determining whether the update applies to your system. Then, the update itself
takes much longer to install compared to Windows XP's Update.exe (hours instead of minutes if you are installing dozens of updates through a script). Finally, that post-installation process ("Configuring updates... Do not turn off your computer") takes several
minutes before shut down followed by a second post-installation process (configuration) upon restart before logon that also takes also several minutes and thrashes the disk.
I can install the entire SP3 for Windows XP in about 10 minutes after downloading the full installer. I can also install a slipstreamed-with-SP3 copy of Windows XP is about 45 minutes on a modern fast PC. In contrast, Windows Vista or Windows 7 do install
relatively quickly (in just about 15-20 minutes) on a modern PC but installing the service packs and updates takes more time than anything on XP did. Not only can service packs not be slipstreamed, but Vista Service Packs are not even cumulative, which means
if you clean install Windows Vista today, you have to install SP1 first which takes about 90 minutes, then SP2 which takes less time, then all the post-SP2 updates which do take hours to install. If you really HAVE to use Windows 7 or Windows Vista, you are
stuck with this slow update non-sense as Microsoft does not even acknowledge that there is any slowdown or loss of functionality in the new servicing mechanism. The fact remains: MSU updates are slow as **** and take too much time and as Windows 7/Vista get
older and Microsoft stops producing service packs, a clean install is going to take longer and longer to bring it up-to-date with all patches installed. Is is worth wasting your time on an OS whose servicing mechanism Microsoft completely screwed up? I once
again recommend you read more about the servicing stack and how it operates at The Servicing Guy's blog:http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/. To fix this messed up servicing stack, Microsoft also offers a tool
called CheckSUR for your system if it finds “inconsistencies in the servicing store”.
Microsoft's Windows Vista and Windows 7 products are not engineered with disk space in mind. It causes a problem, especially for SSDs which are still low capacity and very expensive. The only hope is that Microsoft again completely redesigns this servicing
mechanism in a future Windows release so it would not cause this growing disk space consumption issue, speed up installation of updates by an order of magnitude, not slow down logon and logoff, not prevent systems becoming unusable because of failed updates
being stuck at a particular stage and allow true slipstreaming.
Microsoft's response to this is vague - they simply state "Windows 7's servicing is more reliable than Windows XP" but they cannot acknowledge it is a million times slower and still unreliable...slow to the point of being unusable and sometimes leaving systems
in an unbootable damaged state. Of course they know all this too but can't admit it since it makes their latest OSes look poor. Moving from a very simple and fast update mechanism that worked to a complex one that requires endless “configuring” and repair
through CheckSUR is a product engineering defect.
Take a look at servicing-related complaints in Microsoft's own forums:
1.
Very slow install of updates to Windows 7
2.
Windows 7 - Updates are very slow
3.
Windows 7 Ultimate, it takes long time configuring updates
4.
"Preparing To Configure Windows. Please Do Not Turn Off Your Computer"
5.
Very slow update install at shutdown (Windows 7 Home Premium)
6.
Why does my computer run so slow when installing updates?
7.
Every time the computer is shut down, it always says installing update do not turn off your computer
8.
Computer is working slow and wants to do windows updates all the time
9.
Windows 7 Update install time taking a very long time
10.
Windows wants to install 6 updates every time I log off or put the computer in sleep mode
11.
Problem In Configuring Windows Updates at the time of Startup
12.
Computer really slow after latest updates
13.
Windows hangs up in "configuring updates"
14.
Why can't windows 7 install updates?
15.
Every time computer is shut down, receive Installing updates, do not shut off....
16.
How long does it take for the Windows 7 Home Premium updates take?
17.
Windows 7 "Installing Update 2 of 2" for 12 hours now
18.
Updates causes endless reboots
19.
Updates stuck installing for over 24 hrs. Computer does not boot
20.
Cannot load Windows 7 after installing 2 critical updates
A proper solution to this problem would be to completely re-engineer and rewrite the servicing mechanism so it operates with the speed, reliability and pain-free operation of the XP servicing mechanism.
I don't see this situation improving in Windows 8 either. Good luck with your Windows tablet taking hours to install service packs and updates. Now, do iPads take that long to install updates?
So fact is Microsoft understates or conveniently hides the real system requirements to keep a Windows 7/Vista system running. System requirements are install time may be 15 GB of free disk space but over time, this number increasing is unacceptable, especially
for people's SSDs which are running out of disk space!

Trouble keeping photo size when dragging and dropping photo into new document on elements 12

When trying to place an image into a new document in photoshop elements 12, I select all-copy-paste the image (or even drag it) over to the new doc created. However, when I do this - the image does not paste in at the same size. It typically shrinks down in size. Do I have to save the file, close out and then open the new doc and PLACE it in the document in order for it to keep size? There must be a better way to do this. Basically, how can I drag a photo that is 4x6 over to a new doc while keeping the size at 4x6. Any help would be much appreciated.

Whenever you combine two images, the resolution (ppi) of the bottom image is the resolution for everything. So if you take an image that is, say, 72 ppi, and paste that into an image at 300 ppi, the pasted object will shrink a lot. If you paste a high-res image into a low res image, the pasted object will enlarge a lot. The best way to get consistent results is to make sure that both images are at the same resolution (image>resize>image size) before you start.

Printing a PDF and keeping the original size.

I have a question, in my workplace I have to share documents with other departments. I draw them in Illustrator and save them as PDF, since is the only way they can print them. My problem is that the drawings are size sensitive, if I draw a 4 x6 inches square, that's what it needs to be printed (100%). However, when people print the PDF file, the size changes, and the drawing is being reduce a bit. I know that we could manage each printer's settings, but not everybody would be able to do it. My question is if there is any way to know the reduction rate or proportion when converting to PDF. Should I make my drawings at 105% or 110% to get the 100% when printing? Is there any other way to get this done in a easier way? Please, any suggestion will be highly appreciated!

Danella,
The only thing you can do is to keep the exact paper size used in the PDF (A4, Letter, whatever).
Then instruct whoever is printing the PDF to use the settings that result in a Zoom level of 100%: in Reader by ticking Actual Size, (keep in Acrobat by unticking both Shrink oversized pages to paper size and Expand smaller pages to paper size, or whatever it takes depending on Reader/Acrobat version.

Export to Flash and keep the file size small!

Clearly Keynote has a major bug when exporting to Flash. The files become very large, about 10x larger then the combined size of the JPEG's inserted. Earlier today I discovered how to get around this issue, albeit a far from perfect solution. Simply open each picture used in Photoshop and use the "save for web" menu. Save each image as GIF, 128 colors and rebuild the Keynote presentation. Although a color rich picture saved as GIF versus a reasonable compressed JPEG is x 3 or x 4 times larger the end result when exporting the Keynote to Flash is substantially smaller. Apparently Keynote exports to Flash without adding size when GIF's are used. Apple, please fix this "JPEG export" bug!

Hi Gopal,
You can get the components in your internal table using the below code-
lo_struc_descr ?= cl_abap_typedescr=>describe_by_data( <fs_line> ).
    lt_components = lo_struc_descr->get_components( ).
* Insert the component names in the start of the file
    LOOP AT lt_components INTO ls_components.
      IF lv_string IS INITIAL.
        lv_string = ls_components-name.
      ELSE.
        CONCATENATE lv_string ls_components-name INTO lv_string
        SEPARATED BY cl_abap_char_utilities=>horizontal_tab.
      ENDIF.
    ENDLOOP.
Here <fs_line> is a work area. Basically we are getting all the fields in the internal table and writing their names in the start of the file.
Hope it helps.
Regards,
Ravi

PDF TO FLASH Keeping the size around 180kb

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for