ok, I finally could solve my problem with pdftk. thx for your support & best rg, michael
Michael Petroni wrote: > I'm trying the pdftk way and the first thing that I found out is, that > > $ pdftk input.pdf burst > > produces the following error when input.pdf is a scribus 1.3.3.3 > generated 1.4 pdf file: > > Internal Error: invalid top_outline_p in ReportOnPdf() > > has somebody any idea about that? > > thx & rg. > michael > > > Craig Ringer wrote: >> Gregory Pittman wrote: >>> Michael Petroni wrote: >>>> The problem by placing the pdf inside an image frame is, that it is >>>> automatically converted to a bitmap (settings seem to be the same as for >>>> eps graphics in preferences, default 300dpi) by ghostscript. >>>> >>>> I'm planning to produce an ezine with contributed pages by other people >>>> which I will receive as pdf files. By placing inside an image frame, all >>>> text will be converted to bitmaps. This means not only loosing quality, >>>> the text is not markable in the pdf reader in the final output pdf any >>>> more. >>>> >>> One of the things we keep seeing is an apparent obsession with the idea >>> that: >>> bitmap = bad >>> vector graphics = good >> Yep, and while it's certainly not that black and white, ther's some >> truth in it: >> >> - When targeting a press, bitmaps leave the RIP little leeway >> for clever halftoning and other processes to ensure crisp >> text; >> - Bitmaps usually result in bigger files, which while rarely an >> issue for sending to a press, can be a problem for online >> publication; >> - As noted earlier, when working with the electronic document, >> you can't select a bitmap as text and copy it (you need an OCR >> tool that understands PDF, and then the results are iffy >> at best). >> >> So, overall, I do think output paths that avoid rasterising inputs in >> favour of retaining the original form are preferable in most situations. >> Not all, and it's never black and white, but more often than not I'd >> rather not use a bitmap if I can include the original vector/mixed form. >> >>> If what you are trying to do is to take PDFs and disassemble-reassemble >>> to a larger PDF, Scribus is not the right tool. Adobe Acrobat will do >>> this, or you might try pdftk for a free program to do this job. >> Yep. Hopefully Scribus will be able to do it one day, though I've not >> yet done much in that direction personally, but right now it's not the >> way to go. HOWEVER, you can sometimes get good results by converting the >> PDFs to EPS files, then using those in Scribus using the PostScript >> output path and an external PS to PDF conversion tool. Unfortunately the >> best results are obtained by the Save as EPS tool from Acrobat and >> Adobe's Distiller (gs is pretty darn good for PS -> PDF, but not so >> great for PDF -> EPS unfortunately). It's still worth a try if you >> REALLY need to avoid bitmaps, but you'll run into a whole extra set of >> issues, and there's no guarantee you'll retain editable text (nor any >> guarantee about how much of the PDF might be rasterised during >> conversion to EPS anyway). >> >> -- >> Craig Ringer >> _______________________________________________ >> Scribus mailing list >> Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de >> http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus > _______________________________________________ > Scribus mailing list > Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de > http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus
