Hi Oliver, yes, Branden referred to (the lack of) font subsetting – but two different toolkits are responsible for the largest files (groff/PDF + ps2pdf with standard fonts, groff/PDF with additional fonts), and I wonder why.
- Jan On 2024-04-22 21:08, Oliver Corff wrote: > Hi, > > probably the massive difference in size is due to embedding the whole > font in the PDF document, I assume. > > Best, Oliver. > > On 22/04/2024 16:56, Jan Eden wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I learned that gropdf in general tends to create larger files than a > > combination of groff and Ghostscript (ps2pdf): > > > > groff -Tps test.tr | ps2pdf - test.pdf → 18K > > groff -t -Tpdf test.tr > test.pdf → 313K > > > > This holds true even when pdf is specified as groff's output device and > > the output is then piped to ps2pdf: > > > > groff -Tpdf test.tr | ps2pdf - test.pdf → 19K > > > > The results above are based on a single-page file set in an Open Type > > font I added to groff. > > > > But today I came across an interesting effect with the standard fonts > > (results for H, similar for T etc): > > > > groff -Tps test.tr | ps2pdf - test.pdf → 13K > > groff -t -Tpdf test.tr > test.pdf → 12K > > groff -Tpdf test.tr | ps2pdf - test.pdf → 2.6M > > > > Why is gropdf more efficient than groff+Ghostscript with the standard > > fonts – and why does groff create such gargantuan files for the PDF > > output device when coupled with ps2pdf? > > > > - Jan > > -- > Dr. Oliver Corff > Wittelsbacherstr. 5A > 10707 Berlin > GERMANY > Tel.: +49-30-85727260 > mailto:oliver.co...@email.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
