Larger PDF size
By chance, I happen to have some PDF generated with ver. 2.0 at the beginning of March.
After re-generating the PDF for the same scores, I noticed that the current revision (pulled today from Github) generates PDF's which are ca 6.5 times larger (for instance, a PDF jumped from 429,666 bytes to 2,809,728 bytes). Both PDF are functional, but the newer is also slower to display.
Is this intentional (different PDF version or what else) or is a regression?
Thanks,
M.
P.S.: I can provide the PDF files themselves, if useful (to me, PDF internals are undecypherable).
Comments
We have seen differences making pdf files depending on operating system with the master/trunk. On linux, the pdf file sizes were several MB's smaller as opposed to Windows. No idea why this happens, but it has to do with Qt most likely.
Not sure whether this answers your question.
Thanks for the reply. This is definitely part of the answer.
However, there has to be something else: a quick test tells me that, with ver. 1.2, exporting the same score to PDF under Windows and under Linux creates files of very similar size (not exactly the same though, but just a few Kb of difference over more than 1 Mb).
Aren't both ver 1.2 and ver 2.0 based on the same Qt lib 4.8? So, Qt alone is possibly not enough to explain a size increase of ca. 650%.
Worth filing a bug report, perhaps.
Thanks,
M.
1.2 uses Qt 4.8.0, where as 2.0 uses Qt 4.8.2.
Could it be things like DPI? Might be wrong.
In reply to 1.2 uses Qt 4.8.0, where as by chen lung
I use locally built 2.0 and it definitiely uses Qt 4.8.0, as I only have this lib installed both under Win and under Ubuntu.
DPI might be wrong, but it should not affect vector graphics (and the bulk of MS output is vector); I'll check it, anyway.
Thanks,
M.
In reply to I use locally built 2.0 and by Miwarre
Okay, self-built ones might be different.
The nightly builds provided are 4.8.2.
It's just because I was told Windows uses 72 DPI, whereas Mac uses 96 - it might not have any baring, though (just pertains to the screen, or whatever?).
In reply to Okay, self-built ones might by chen lung
The old rule of thumb about monitors for Windows computers being 72dpi and Mac being 96dpi hasn't really been true since the days of 480x640 resolutions on 12" CRT monitors. Most monitors are at least 100dpi these days, but it all depends on the size of your monitor and the resolution you use. dpi, after all, literally stands for dots per inch. Divide the numbers of pixels on a side by the lengths of that side and there's your dpi figure.
In reply to The old rule of thumb about by Marc Sabatella
I think I might have mixed the numbers around :)?
In reply to I think I might have mixed by chen lung
No, the point is that you can longer make any such generalities at all. Depending on what screen resolution you have set in your graphics driver and the physical size of your mo ItOr, you actual dpi could be just about anything. There is no way to predict what dpi any given person might be looking at on his screen.
I would have though that compression (or lack, thereof) is more likely to cause such a large difference in file size rather than DPI.