> Is it Windows or convert that is expanding your glob for you? In that > same directory, try > > echo *.jpg > > and see how many files are listed.
I can't tell; I just note that it's working. The command line above does not work under Windows; it will just echo the exact string, i.e. "*.jpp". But you can do things like 'dir *.jpg' and Windows will list all files with the extension "jpg". > So is the difference in the image blob, or in the EXIF tags (which might > get stripped on the way in to the PDF?)? How different is the size (a > few bytes? 10%? or ?)? The difference in size is only very slight, about 1%, and it is not due to excessive data being stripped off. The image content is actually slightly different. I compared the two images via convert original.jpg extracted.jpg -compose difference -composite comparison.png and then counted the colours. >> I suspect that ImageMagick somehow re-encoded the JPEGs before it wrapped >> them into the PDF. > > You might be right, because IM tends to decompress images to full > bitmaps before doing pretty much anything to them. > >> Is there a way to tell ImageMagick to leave the JPEGs as they are and just >> to wrap them into a PDF? It would be great if there would be a "preserve" option or alike. When combining several JPEGs to a PDF, there really is no use in re-encoding the JPEGs if you apply no modifications to them. I checked with Adobe Acrobat and it does the trick of merging several JPEGs to one PDF, with the extracted JPEGs being exactly identical to their originals. There also seems to be other proprietary software that does the trick of bulk-converting JPEGs to PDF, but no freeware tool. The populat PDFsam does not take other formats than PDF as input. Wolfgang Hugemann _______________________________________________ Magick-users mailing list [email protected] http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-users
