Hi Georg,
> This is a repost of a message I sent to the fop mailing list two weeks ago. > Since I did not get any response there, I assume, it's not a fop problem and > so I hope somebody here can help me. I can think of a few more reasons for not receiving an answer (note that none of these was confirmed): * The subject was already addressed in one or more previous threads -- have you crawled through the mailing list archives? * The issue is known and possibly already in the bug tracker -- have you tried to find related bugs? * FOP members are too busy to keep up -- in that case, I'd say two weeks would be appropriate before pinging for an answer again (but first make sure none of the above was the case and, if it was, then please consider following-up your unanswered post with one pointing to the relevant mailing list threads and/or bugs. > I have a png image, which I place in a pdf. > Without doing anything else, using fop the image in the pdf is much brighter > than the original image. I wonder if this is simply occurring because your image viewer and/or PDF reader software may not be handling gamma correction properly...? ;-) I believe Adobe PDF reader does handle all of this, but I'd say knowing how are you assuming that it "is much brighter than the original image" (by providing some more background on which software environment is being used, both for image manipulation and PDF viewing). Providing even more (operating system, Java version and even graphics hardware such as graphics adapter, monitor and driver versions used) may somehow also help towards a proper diagnostic of the problem. > Could this be a batik bug/feature/limitation or a user generated problem? Is > this even the correct list for my problem? As far as I know, FOP does use Batik internally for image handling when the (vector) SVG format [1] is used. Regarding image formats natively supported (namely raster formats such as PNG and JPEG) are handled by FOP directly. Also, it appears that some image formats (such as PNG) are already being handled by FOP using Apache XML Graphics Commons [2] so it may be a limitation on the decoder or something. [slightly above in the original message] > Further information: [...] Attaching a reduced test case in a follow up would be useful: * At least, a small image which reproduces the problem; * Also potentially useful, the FOP document used to include it into the PDF. I'd say you should confirm all of the suggestions above and, if nothing is found, then providing a test case was important in order for someone to be able to take a look at [3]. Again, if/when posting a follow-up, I'd say the FOP mailing list seemed the more appropriate place for it. ;-) > Regards, > Georg Datterl Hope this helps, Helder [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/ [2] http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/#commons [3] http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html#showmehow --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
