pdfbox-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Esteban R <eru...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also applies to 2.0.6)
Date Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:45:08 GMT
This is what I do (windows 10 environment, java 1.8.0_121). I can upgrade java if needed.


C:\temp>java -jar pdfbox-app-2.0.3.jar PDFToImage out.pdf

C:\temp>dir out1.jpg
 El volumen de la unidad C no tiene etiqueta.
 El número de serie del volumen es: 98F8-8920

 Directorio de C:\temp

15/06/2017  15:35             4.107 out1.jpg
               1 archivos          4.107 bytes
               0 dirs  52.658.810.880 bytes libres

C:\temp>java -jar pdfbox-app-2.0.4.jar PDFToImage out.pdf

C:\temp>dir out1.jpg
 El volumen de la unidad C no tiene etiqueta.
 El número de serie del volumen es: 98F8-8920

 Directorio de C:\temp

15/06/2017  15:36             4.286 out1.jpg
               1 archivos          4.286 bytes
               0 dirs  52.658.810.880 bytes libres

C:\temp>java -jar pdfbox-app-2.0.6.jar PDFToImage out.pdf

C:\temp>dir out1.jpg
 El volumen de la unidad C no tiene etiqueta.
 El número de serie del volumen es: 98F8-8920

 Directorio de C:\temp

15/06/2017  15:36             4.286 out1.jpg
               1 archivos          4.286 bytes
               0 dirs  52.658.810.880 bytes libres

C:\temp>java -version
java version "1.8.0_121"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_121-b13)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.121-b13, mixed mode)


In my case out1.jpg has a different size (4.107 vs 4.286). If you compare visually the output,
files are almost the same, the difference is visible when you zoom in.

My screen should be at 100% (how can I check?).

Esteban





________________________________
De: Tilman Hausherr <THausherr@t-online.de>
Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 06:29 p.m.
Para: users@pdfbox.apache.org
Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also applies to 2.0.6)

Am 15.06.2017 um 20:19 schrieb Esteban R:
> I'm sorry. I was not using exactly pdfbox-app-2.0.4.jar but pdfbox-app-2.0.4-20160925.091907-39.jar
(maybe a snapshot build?). I'm not sure where did I get that version. I have tryied with pdfbox-app-2.0.4.jar
and the output is the same than in version 2.0.6.
>
>
> So, I tried again with pdfbox-app-2.0.3.jar (downloaded from https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox-app/2.0.3)
and It produces the same output than pdfbox-app-2.0.4-20160925.091907-39.jar (so the change
is between versions 2.0.3 and 2.0.4).
Maven Repository: org.apache.pdfbox » pdfbox-app » 2.0.3<https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox-app/2.0.3>
mvnrepository.com
org.apache.pdfbox pdfbox-app




Same rendering in PDFDebugger for me, regardless whether jdk8 or jdk9.

Tilman



>
> Esteban
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De: Tilman Hausherr <THausherr@t-online.de>
> Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 04:33 p.m.
> Para: users@pdfbox.apache.org
> Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also applies to
2.0.6)
>
> Am 15.06.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Esteban R:
>> Warning: don't use the following link to download de pdf: <http://file-upload.com/d/6FgO>
  (seems to be a malicious page, I tried to remove the link while writing the e-mail, but
that part was kept anyways)
> done
>
>> .
>>
>> Use this one instead:
>>
>> http://wikisend.com/download/185248/out.pdf
> Thanks... disregard my theory about PDFBOX-1958. But I am not able to
> reproduce the effect with jdk8. With jdk9 there is an effect but it
> looks better for me (my screen is on 125%).
>
> The PDFToImage results are identical.
>
> What jdk are you using? What OS, and do you have a screen that is not
> set at 100% ?
>
> Tilman
>
>
>
>
>> Esteban
>>
>> ________________________________
>> De: Esteban R <eruiz0@hotmail.com>
>> Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 04:09 p.m.
>> Para: users@pdfbox.apache.org
>> Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also applies
to 2.0.6)
>>
>> These links should work for at least a week:
>>
>>
>>
>> Screenshots:
>>
>> https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg

[https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg]

> [https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg

[https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg]

]
>
>> [https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg
> [https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg]
>
> ]
>> (2.0.4)
>>
>> https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg
> [https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg]
>
>> [https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg
> [https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg]
>
> ]
>> (2.0.5)
>>
>>
>> PDF:
>>
>> <http://file-upload.com/d/6FgO>http://wikisend.com/download/185248/out.pdf
(need to click the "Download" button)
>>
>> ________________________________
>> De: Tilman Hausherr <THausherr@t-online.de>
>> Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 03:35 p.m.
>> Para: users@pdfbox.apache.org
>> Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also applies
to 2.0.6)
>>
>> Am 15.06.2017 um 02:37 schrieb Esteban R:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have noticed with PDFDebugger that the same pdf is rendered
>>> differently by pdfbox-2.0.4 and by pdfbox-2.0.5 (pdfbox-2.0.6 produces
>>> the same output than pdfbox-2.0.5): the newer versions generate a more
>>> pixelated image.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please find attached a sample pdf and two screenshots of PDFDebugger
>>> in version 2.0.4 and in version 2.0.5 (also applies for version 2.0.6).
>>>
>> Please upload a PDF to a sharehoster, attachments don't get through. It
>> *might* be
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958
> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> issues.apache.org
> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the image
rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in another ...
>
>
>
>> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> issues.apache.org
> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the image
rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in another ...
>
>
>
>> issues.apache.org
>> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the image
rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in another ...
>>
>>
>>
>> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> issues.apache.org
> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the image
rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in another ...
>
>
>
>> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> issues.apache.org
> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the image
rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in another ...
>
>
>
>> issues.apache.org
>> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the image
rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in another ...
>>
>>
>>
>> issues.apache.org
>> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the image
rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in another ...
>>
>>
>>
>> see the last two comments I made there. Without the change some files
>> would not be rendered at all.
>>
>>
>>> The old approach is better for our pourposes. Is there a way to revert
>>> to the old rendering?
>>>
>> By using 2.0.4, obviously. Alternatively build from source code a 2.0.6
>> version, and try to revert the commit mentioned in the issue above. It
>> is possible because the change did not touch very much.
>>
>> But I'd still be interested in seeing your PDF.
>>
>> Tilman
>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@pdfbox.apache.org


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