Mailing-List: contact users-help@pdfbox.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@pdfbox.apache.org
From: Esteban R <eruiz0@hotmail.com>
To: "users@pdfbox.apache.org" <users@pdfbox.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also
 applies to 2.0.6)
Thread-Topic: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also
 applies to 2.0.6)
Thread-Index: AQHS5W5lq6i5/H/CDkSaEY7OQRzgeaImDygAgAAEUEiAAAZ9CIAABUmAgAAYTdmAAAhGAIAAAh/3
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:45:08 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR10MB19057A3973EA1A53F1200FE58EC00@BN6PR10MB1905.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN6PR10MB19056CF14CE722D1D5DAE1AB8EC30@BN6PR10MB1905.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
 <d03c8202-83d8-cb5e-d8ad-0b39e776f896@t-online.de>
 <BN6PR10MB190541C28C5C8ED08A83C3908EC00@BN6PR10MB1905.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
 <BN6PR10MB190592AD998D676755C338B58EC00@BN6PR10MB1905.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
 <b0b3a92d-d788-b7ce-7e2f-fb6cb0c90e40@t-online.de>
 <BN6PR10MB1905261E8A8FB3588978F42E8EC00@BN6PR10MB1905.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>,<60755df2-3894-adb4-7027-a8610da5af51@t-online.de>
In-Reply-To: <60755df2-3894-adb4-7027-a8610da5af51@t-online.de>
Accept-Language: es-AR, en-US
Content-Language: es-AR
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [gYRVM0HmG6zWx3kO85ZzGUmk6rrjsd2Ab9DTSMRhzqw=]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;CO1NAM04HT056;24:h97Fo6xlcX9LBGHmhlIy0H2SA/2Qq31nFGeiD3gfJuFJs5ODoRgUPb4DXpWgbV1/2ujki5dRNhLudMGNXbXNc5cgJb910q3MPsERbiQzlGM=;7:7XRaJXhJJKFbMQTi3zgcNAf3Bm0XdmRekYQY4fx4upKnZ6sHg8Zs2zWxaG8Dk2+LnJpwOKsWeuISio64b25B28VviXhW0si2Ysu5V4laH2Lnj6dciP8jlGif3N0zNk43uqU3ud0mBDIMzcOMxxDOTXNRZJapY++rLF1LcUf9M/33nG2bWtMSc7OxXOFpAMXJ2PWiWSAEJYmj89vINfjpaGKJpI+e4KuDCt6wMlIilZjhinOv4NACKerSd37pBnyLZ1Zm3vEoEviA+u4E3wM0yfgUV9FidJZ3alx3P9YRpwYMfEqFEXFRYZOwUwZ8ic6s
x-incomingheadercount: 45
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(7070007)(98901004);DIR:OUT;SFP:1901;SCL:1;SRVR:CO1NAM04HT056;H:BN6PR10MB1905.namprd10.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO1NAM04HT056:
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5f73862d-f822-49ac-8359-08d4b41ea573
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031324274)(2017031323274)(2017031322274)(1601125374)(1603101448)(1701031045);SRVR:CO1NAM04HT056;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(444000031);SRVR:CO1NAM04HT056;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095);SRVR:CO1NAM04HT056;
x-forefront-prvs: 0339F89554
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_BN6PR10MB19057A3973EA1A53F1200FE58EC00BN6PR10MB1905namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Jun 2017 18:45:08.2818
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1NAM04HT056
archived-at: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:45:24 -0000

--_000_BN6PR10MB19057A3973EA1A53F1200FE58EC00BN6PR10MB1905namp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is what I do (windows 10 environment, java 1.8.0_121). I can upgrade j=
ava 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 n=FAmero 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 n=FAmero 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 n=FAmero 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 v=
isually the output, files are almost the same, the difference is visible wh=
en 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 di=
d I get that version. I have tryied with pdfbox-app-2.0.4.jar and the outpu=
t is the same than in version 2.0.6.
>
>
> So, I tried again with pdfbox-app-2.0.3.jar (downloaded from https://mvnr=
epository.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 =BB pdfbox-app =BB 2.0.3<https://mvnrep=
ository.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 (als=
o 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-u=
pload.com/d/6FgO>   (seems to be a malicious page, I tried to remove the li=
nk 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 (al=
so 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.p=
df (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 (al=
so 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://issu=
es.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> issues.apache.org
> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file h=
ad the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the im=
age in another ...
>
>
>
>> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://iss=
ues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://issu=
es.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> issues.apache.org
> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file h=
ad the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the im=
age 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 i=
mage in another ...
>>
>>
>>
>> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://iss=
ues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://issu=
es.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> issues.apache.org
> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file h=
ad the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the im=
age in another ...
>
>
>
>> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://iss=
ues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> [PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is ...<https://issu=
es.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
> issues.apache.org
> This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file h=
ad the image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the im=
age 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 i=
mage 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 i=
mage 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


--_000_BN6PR10MB19057A3973EA1A53F1200FE58EC00BN6PR10MB1905namp_--