Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: compress.png (6KB, 665x69px) Image search:
[Google]
6KB, 665x69px
Do you use pdf compressing services? If so, which one?
Reducing the size of a file tends to make navigation faster, as less stuff is being loaded on a page
So many files are bloated, especially 3rd-party ones. If the file is mostly made of text, it's likely that compression can trim off irrelevant content with a very small loss in quality.
Currently using Ilovepdf as the average compression option seems more efficient than others, and one can compress files up to 160Mo withtou registering. The addition of "-ilovepdf-compressed" in the file name is slightly annoying yet understandable.
>>
>>
File: 1429318177999.png (52KB, 346x360px) Image search:
[Google]
52KB, 346x360px
>>54010630
>The addition of "-ilovepdf-compressed" in the file name is slightly annoying yet understandable.
You... know you can rename files, right?
>>
>>54011196
It takes more time though, and (to my knowledge) firefox doesn't allow renaming before placing it into the download file.
When you have 60 files to rename, it becomes a chore.
>>
>>54011182
/tg/ hoards tons of pdf though, especially with the sharing threads.
>>
>>54011344
Don't tell me you're one of those people who download files straight into their browser's default Downloads folder.
>>
>>54011344
If you have 60 files to rename you can use windows powershell for it.
>>
I'd simply try mutool.
Don't know how good it's compression and garbage collection works, since I never bothered to compare it for a sufficiently big set of pdfs.
Gimme the pdf you made the OP pic for if you can, and I'll quickly try and see what mutool makes out of it.
>>
File: Compress2.png (6KB, 645x72px) Image search:
[Google]
6KB, 645x72px
>>54014774
I'm curious about that, so here we go.
I had to change the test target, as I removed the original file in the OP.
https://mega.nz/#F!oHwklCYb!dg1-Wu9941X8XuBVJ_JgIQ!ZWIkCBRD
Amethyst Quintessence
>>
>>54016066
well, seems like you can forget mutool for that. I only managed to shave off ~2MB.
Maybe Ilovepdf has a lossy compression (well, I'm rather certain. Can't imagine that kind of difference in compression levels otherwise), while mupdf only uses lossless methods afaik
>>
>>54016265
Thanks for the experiment.
I shave 26% at the lowest compression level, and the apparent loss is pretty much nonexistent.
Loss is more apparent at the average comp lvl in the case of image-only pdfs. Certain kinds of layers will have slightly blurry text.
In the case of pdfs with mostly text, though, I heartily recommend compression at that level.
>>54011182
The thread was mostly a question about how common /tg does the compression of rpgs pdfs.
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3