V25 JPEG Compression in PDF folio sucks....

Guys -
What happened to compression in v25 folios?
I've had two deisgners ask me this in the last week...and I noticed it myself. I don't think we are doing anything differently...
It seems that JPEG compression in PDF folios has been increased since prior releases of Folio Builder.
Pixelization is really noticeable even over JPEG folios set to high quality.
look at this screenshot...
The image on the left is a High Quality Print PDF exported straight from inDesign. The central image is the doc as a JPEG folio. The right image is the doc as a PDF folio.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74532153/dps.png
Any one else notice this? And/or is there a way to override the default compression settings for PDF folios?

Hi Javad -
This was not resolved.
I worked closely with Yasin at DPS Gold Support - and he could reproduce the problem but was unsure what or why it was happening.
My guess is that a decision was made by Adobe to increase default compression to reduce file size.
The knock against DPS is file bloat - both as it relates to file transmission and file storage.
I think this was how they attempted to address both issues.
There are no controls within inDesign or Folio Builder to override the default compression.
The only way around is to create a PNG or JPEG folio and lose vector artwork.
I'm hoping it may be addressed with V 26
Mike

Similar Messages

Help me remember how i compressed this PDF

Could anyone please help me figure out how I created this PDF file, because I don't remember. What program and compression settings did I use?
In November I compressed the PDF, and I could have sworn it gave me tons more options than what I currently see in Optimize PDF on Acrobat 10. Now I only see JPEG2000, JPEG, and ZIP.
What I remember seeing when I compressed the PDF was a lot more compression options, JBIG2, LZW, FLATE, DEFLATE, JPEG2000, JPG, ZIP and more spefic settings to apply to the compression.
I don't have any previous versions of Acrobat installed, or any other type of third party PDF utility. The options I saw were in something that looked like Adobe Distiller, but that couldn't have been it because it looks like Distiller only takes postscript, and I never did make a postscript out of this PDF. And the adiditional compression options I saw aren't anywhere in Distiller.
The original uncompressed PDF says "produced in Adobe Acrobat 10.1.1 Image Conversion Plug-in" (Link to DL PDF)
The compressed PDF that I don't remember how I created says "produced in PDFScanLib v1.2.2 in Adobe Acrobat 10.1.1" (Link to DL PDF)
An easier question to ask, and better answer for me would be, how do you create a PDF in a way that it says produced in "produced in PDFScanLib v1.2.2 in Adobe Acrobat 10.1.1"? As I already know how to create the PDF so it says "produced in Adobe Acrobat 10.1.1 Image Conversion Plug-in".
I would really appreciate anyones input and help.

Those were among the first I tried already. They didn't do what I needed. There's still tons of unwanted pixels around the dancer. So after trying every filter I could think have anything to do with what I need + Googling, I gave up and came here.
Thanks anyway.
Maybe I'm using it wrong? Don't think so though.

Flatten transparency without lossy JPEG compression

Acrobat is using lossy JPEG compression (quality: medium) on some images after transparent objects were flattened. Even if the images had a ZIP compression before, Acrobat will use a lossy JPEG compression. The result is a loss of quality. There are also differences in quality within a single image, cause some images are divided in parts with a ZIP compression and with a lossy JPEG compression.
Is there a workaround to use Acrobat's transparency flattening without JPEG compression? The problem appears in Acrobat 7, 8 and 9.

Hi Cropas!
As stated above my PDF export settings you can read that this option is set to OFF. <Create Tagged PDF: Off>.
Indd can not cope with this option for embedded PDF document indd?

Tiff image with JPEG compression

How does photoshop handle RGB and YCbCr as photometric interpretations of tiff image with JPEG compression?
Are they same?

Got no idea but here is a website with a adobe pdf answer.
http://www.ask.com/web?q=How+does+photoshop+handle+RGB+and+YCbCr+as+photometric+interpreta tions+of+tiff+image+with+JPEG+compression%3F&search=&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir

Changing default jpeg compression for Web Gallery files

I have created several web galleries from both Raw and Jpeg files with Iphoto '08 that suffer from serious jpeg compression artifacts. I haven't found any way to change the compression amount to reduce the artifacts. Is there actually a way?

papasteveo:
Welcome to the Apple Discussions. There is no way in iPhoto for the user to manage the jpg compression of the web gallery photos. If the option for visitors to download the photos is selected the copy that's uploaded is compressed approximately equivalent to an Photoshop quality setting of 8 or 9 out of 12. The pixel dimensions are the same as the original unless the max dimension in the original exceeds 3054. The the file is resized to 3054 max dimension.
If the gallery is just for viewing the image is resized to 800 x 600 with additional compression.
You could manually replace the file with one that you've prepared but it would be very tedious as each file has it's own folder and the file name is changed to web.jpg (viewing only) or large.jpg (download). You would have to rename each file to be uploaded to the new name and make sure it's placed in the correct folder.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Automator - Changing JPEG Compression has no effect

I have an application using Render PDF Pages as Images, using JPEG compression, but no matter what I change the Compression setting to, the image is always the same size. Bug or something else?

and Oh Surprise! the background music is louder than what it should be. Its clip volume is set to 20% >and the Voiceover track's is set to 200%; as it was before.. but the music is so loud that we can't hear >the Voiceover track anymore.
This could happen if ducking is set on the music track. Ducking defines the music track as 100% and works everything else out from there. Ducking will diminish every other track. If you had ducking set to 25%, and volume of voiceover 200%, the music track would need to be 800% of the voiceover track.
My recommendation, turn ducking totally off. And use it only on short clips or short audio clips. If you have any long clips or music tracks, use the volume slider to set the volume.

Problem while compressing a PDF

Hi,
I am facing a problem while compressing a PDF. The requirement is to merge lot of PDF into one. But when we merge the file the size of the PDF becomes huge. It can not be sent as an attachment in an email. We also don't want to ZIP the file. Any help is welcome.
Thanks,

Thanks a lot Satyajit,
I have already gone through the post. I can not change the existing forms. I can compress one form to the least I can but when I merge 500 of such forms then the size becomes huge. I need to compress the "merged" big file, not the single form. My individual forms are already very small in size.
Regards

Is there any way to reduce the JPEG compression ap...

I'm wondering if there is any way to reduce the fierce amount of JPEG compression applied to photos taken with the 6220 classic? I'm 99.99% sure that there isn't, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
I'm a professional graphic designer with 15 years experience, and as such understand the technicalities of digital imaging better than most.
What the general public fails to understand is that ever higher megapixelage doesn't automatically equate to ever higher quality images.
The 6220 classic has a 5MP camera, which is one of the reasons I bought it, along with the fact that it has a Xenon flash and a proper lens cover. Its imaging quality also generally gets very positive reviews online.
However, the 6220 classic takes far poorer photos than my 5 year old Olympus digital camera which only shoots 4MP. Why is this? Many reasons. The Olympus has a much larger imaging chip, onto which the image is recorded (physical size as opposed to pixel dimensions), a far superior lens (physical size & quality of materials), optical (not digital) zoom, and the ability to set various levels of JPEG compression, from fierce (high compression, small files, low quality images) to none at all (no compression, large files, high quality TIFF-encoded images).
When I first used the camera on the 6220 classic (I've never owned a camera phone before) I was appalled at the miniscule file sizes. A 2592 x 1944 pixel image squashed into a few hundred kilobytes makes a mockery of having decent pixel dimensions in the first place, but then the average consumer neither cares about nor would notice the difference. They're not going to be examining & working on their images in Photoshop on a 30" Apple Cinema Display.
Is fierce JPEG compression (and an inability to alter it) the norm with camera phones, or do other camera phones (perhaps from other manufacturers) allow greater latitude in how images are compressed?
Thanks.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Believe me, I was very aware that this was a phone with a camera attached, not a dedicated camera, before I bought it. I went into this with my eyes open. I knew the lens, imaging chip, zoom, etc, would all be grossly inferior, but given all of this, surely the phone manufacturers should help to compensate for this by adding a few lines of code to the software to reduce (or ideally remove) the JPEG compression, or at least give the user the option to do so if they want? The fierce compression just makes images obtained with compromised hardware even worse than they would have been otherwise.
It adds insult to injury and is totally unnecessary, especially given that the memory card in the 6200 classic is 1GB but the one in my Olympus is only 128 MB! It's not as if lack of storage space is an issue! On the Olympus I can only take about 8 pictures without compression (although I could obviously buy a much larger memory card). On the 6220 classic, given the ridiculous amount of compression, there's room for over 1200 photos! It would be far better to let 70 uncompressed images be stored than 1200 compressed ones. Does anyone seriously need to take over a thousand photos on a camera phone without having access to a computer to offload them? I doubt it.
Also, compressing the images requires processing power, which equals time. If they were saved uncompressed, the recovery time between shots would be reduced, although obviously writing the larger files to memory may offset this somewhat.
Just to give people an idea, an uncompressed 8-bit RGB TIFF with pixel dimensions of 2592 x 1944 takes up approximately 14.5 MB of space. (The exact number of bytes varies slightly depending on the header information stored with the file). The 3 photos I've taken so far with the 6220 classic (and that I've decided to actually keep) have files sizes of 623, 676 & 818 KB respectively. An average of these 3 sizes is 706 KB. 706 KB is less than 5% the size of 14.5 MB, which means that, on average, the camera, after is records the 5038848 pixels in an image, throws over 95% of them away.
I'm deeply unimpressed.

LR JPEG compression vs. Photoshop JPEG compression

I haven't found any documentation of the meaning of the 0 - 100% JPEG compression value in LR's (v1 or v2) Export File window. And the default value of 100% is overkill and results in huge files. At least I'm familiar with the Photoshop's 0-12 JPEG quality scale with associated quality names: Low, Medium, High, and Maximum.
Via trial and error, I have found that LR has the same 13 quality levels as Photoshop and gives the same results, they are just mapped on a 0 - 100% scale. This also means that changing a few percent may not make any change at all, since a quality change only happens about every 7 percent.
For those who might find it useful, here is a table of the mappings:
The first column is the Photoshop compression number and name; the second column in the range of Lightroom percentages that will give the same results.
0-Low 0-7%
1-Low 8-15%
2-Low 16-23%
3-Low 24-30%
4-Low 31-38%
5-Med 39-46%
6-Med 47-53%
7-Med 54-61%
8-High 62-69%
9-High 70-76%
10-Max 77-84%
11-Max 85-91%
12-Max 92-100%

I looked at this again using PS's 'Baseline Standard' JPEG format option instead of 'Baseline Optimized. LR does not provide the format options Standard, Optimized, and Progressive, but appears to use 'Baseline Standard.' The equivalent compression level LR file size is within 16KB of PS's file size, which is probably due to slight differences in in the file metadata.
This pretty much confirms LR and PS use the same 'Baseline Standard' JPEG compression algorithms. The PS level 7 reduced quality is also seen at LR's level 54-61 JPEG Quality setting. Jeffrey Friedel mentions this in his analysis of LR's JPEG Quality settings and a reply from Brian Tao:
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality
Jeffrey Friedel's comment:
One thing I find interesting (but don't understand) is that in the first example, the difference in file size between the 47〜53 quality and 54〜61 quality is considerable (49k to 66k bytes), while in the second example, the the same two levels of quality produces essentially the same file size. There seems to be some kind of switch in compression algorithm once Lightroom is at a quality setting of 54 or above that puts the emphasis on encoding the easily-discernible smooth gradients of the sunset example, and if they are lacking in the image, as with the reed-window-shade example, the attempt at extra quality fails, and the file size does not increase. That's my guess, but it's just a guess.
Brian Tao's Reply:
This is due to the downsampling (basically, a reduction in resolution) of one or more of the image channels before passing it to the actual compression routine. Human vision is much more sensitive to changes in luminance (brightness) than chrominance (colour). JPEG takes advantage of this by reducing the amount of colour information stored in the image in order to achieve higher compression ratios. Because it is colour and not brightness that is sacrificed, this is called “chroma subsampling”. Look up that term in Wikipedia for a far better and more detailed description than I can provide here.
In a nutshell, Adobe products will use either a 4:4:4 subsampling (which is no subsampling at all, and thus full resolution) or 4:2:0 subsampling (both red and blue channels are reduced to one-quarter resolution before compression). There is no switch to specify the amount of subsampling to use. In Photoshop, the change from 4:2:0 to 4:4:4 happens between quality 6 and 7. In Photoshop’s Save For Web, it happens between quality 50 and 51. In Lightroom, you already noticed that something unexpected happens between 47-53 quality and 54-61 quality. Guess what levels those correspond to in Photoshop? 6 and 7… exactly as expected.
You can very easily demonstrate this by creating a worst-case scenario of JPEG chroma subsampling. Create a small image in Photoshop with a pure blue (RGB = 0,0,255) background. Now type in some pure red text (RGB = 255,0,0). For maximum effect, turn off anti-aliasing, so each pixel is either full on red or full on blue. Zoom in to 500% or so for a clear view of the pixels. Now save the image as a JPEG. With the JPEG quality dialog visible, you will see a real-time preview of the effects of JPEG compression. Start at 12, and work your way down to 0, one step at a time. Watch what happens when you go from 7 to 6. You can do the same with Save For Web and with Lightroom to confirm where they switch from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0.
The file size discrepancy is more noticeable in the sunset shot because most of the information (relatively speaking) is needed to encode the gradual change in chrominance values. There is virtually no luminance detail to worry about, except around the silhouette of the bird. But in the photo of the reed window shades, the fine detail and texture and lack of colour result in practically no difference going from 4:4:4 and 4:2:0.
Because of this hidden (and inaccessble) switch, I have been recommending that to be safe, one should never go below quality 7 in Photoshop, or 51 in Save For Web. In Lightroom, this corresponds to quality 54.
Hope this helps.

My scanner keeps scanning in jpeg instead of pdf. What do I need to do?

When I go to scan documents my scanner has started to scan as jpegs instead of pdf. I've tried several times to switch it back to pdf. It works while I finish my scans but the next time I go to scan more documents it goes back to jpeg. Where do I go and what do I check or uncheck to keep it scanning as pdf?

Hi,
Select scan DOCUMENT rather than PHOTO, it will scan af pdf file(s). My suggestion: scan from printer software (on your computer) will give your more choices.
Regards.
BH
**Click the KUDOS thumb up on the left to say 'Thanks'**
Make it easier for other people to find solutions by marking a Reply 'Accept as Solution' if it solves your problem.

How do I compress a pdf with Create PDF so that I can attach it to e-mail?

How do I compress a pdf with Create PDR so that I can attach it to e-mail?

Hi, Blue Mamba.
Your file is automatically compressed when using the CreatePDF service to convert from some other file type (e.g. Word, Excel) to PDF. For example, most PowerPoint files get compressed 50% to 90% over their original size.
If there is a particular file you're converting to PDF using the CreatePDF service, and you are not seeing the size savings that you would like, please provide more details.
Thanks.
Dave

What jpeg compression does image capture use to save an image

I am about to scan colour positive slides from many years ago, using image capture and a scanner (Epson 2450 photo). Can anyone tell me what jpeg compression is used when the scan is saved to disk? Further, is there any way to alter the quality of suh compression, from say, medium, to highest?

You might be able to find it when you export it from Image Capture.

N8: Missing JPEG compression settings and gallery ...

1) Where's the use of a fine 12 MP camera if a harsh JPEG compression algorith destroys almost all photos taken ?
PLEASE introduce a setting for adjusting the compression strength.
I know there are solutions available already - but these only work with flashing the phone.
2) After updating some social network software the button for opening the gallery (right after taking a photo) vanished - and now shows an icon for uploading the photo instead of opening the gallery. ARGH ! - Even deinstalling that update did not bring the gallery button back. I now curse myself (and Nokia) for installing that senseless update.
That gallery button was such a nice workaround for checking the quality of a photo taken:
That instant photo display after shooting does not allow zooming - so it's of no use because you cannot check the quality; without zooming in, you cannot see if a picture taken was out of focus or blurred by hands shaking.
So PLEASE: Restore the gallery button OR lets us zoom a photo taken right after shooting.
It's of no use instantly uploading a picture to social networks if you can't check if the quality is sufficient.

Hape: There are always people who like everything. There are even people who like getting slapped in the face. So this shouldn't be an excuse for every nonsense possible.
The problem: That new button is just useless because you wouldn't upload a picture prior to knowing if it really is of the quality needed: On the N8s small screen, even blurred or out-of-focus pictures look ok. You'll only see the differences after zooming in.
But you CAN'T zoom in using the quick view feature right after taking the photo - you need to open the picture taken using the gallery.
Of course you may open the gallery via the menu - but you need to scroll down for finding the right menu entry. Takes unnecessary time and is a source of error.
A QUICK review should be a QUICK review - you don't want to miss the next photo opportunity just because you waste your time fiddling with the menu entries just because Nokia destroyed a working system by introducing a button which is of no use if you cannot check the photo's quality prior to using it.
And again: Why doesn't deinstalling restore the previous state ? - As said: I deinstalled that senseless update - but that ugly button is still there.
So again:
PLEASE, Nokia: Remove that senseless button OR let us zoom photos in quick view.

I upgraded to mac 0sx 10.92 now i dont have the feature in my drop down to save as jpeg or save pdf to iphoto

I upgraded to mac 0sx 10.92 now i dont have the feature in my drop down to save as jpeg or save pdf to iphoto

This forum is for Mac Pro machines, which are desktop Macs. You have a Macbook Pro, which is not a desktop Mac.
Try the Macbook Pro forum.
https://discussions.apple.com/community/notebooks/macbook_pro

How do I convert a batch of jpegs to one pdf file?

How do I Convert 70 jpeg images into one pdf file that is not too big to email easily?

Hi
Using our online service, you can combine 12 JPEGS into a PDF.
Please try Acrobat XI to combine 70 images at once.
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=acrobat_pro&loc=us
Thanks
-sarabjit

V25 JPEG Compression in PDF folio sucks....

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for