pdfbox-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Wilson <williamstonconsult...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: pdfBox convertToImage() vs GhostScript
Date Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:05:54 GMT
Last I knew, some of the gradient and masking functions were incomplete,
but most other areas worked very well.
On Aug 29, 2013 12:18 PM, "Maruan Sahyoun" <sahyoun@fileaffairs.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> pdf to image conversion is one of the top features of PDFBox and
> consistently improved. There will be some major enhancements in PDFBox 2.0
> when rendering PDFs with embedded fonts. Unfortunately there is currently
> no feature matrix documenting the PDF standard coverage of PDFBox (but we
> are working on it).
>
> BR
>
> Maruan Sahyoun
>
>
> Am 29.08.2013 um 18:06 schrieb Axel Rose <axel.roeslein@googlemail.com>:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was surprised to see the rendering output of pdfbox via
> convertToImage().
> > This produces quite good quality in my tests.
> >
> > Is there a known limit for supported formats, color spaces, transparency
> or
> > other constructs?
> >
> > Can anybody say if pdfbox will develop to a quality replacement for
> > GhostScript as a RIP?
> >
> > At the moment using pdfbox 1.8.2 there are a few "unsupported/disabled
> operation: XX"
> > messages (e.g. BX, EX, EMC, BDC).
> >
> >
> > Thanks and best regards
> >
> > Axel.
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message