Ok, now I can confirm it. You wrote "PDFDebugger" in your first post, but you meant PDFToImage. It does happen as described. The images are created with 120 dpi here, probably 96 dpi on your system.

I have no idea why, but I'll investigate it and come back to you.

Tilman

Am 15.06.2017 um 20:45 schrieb Esteban R:
This is what I do (windows 10 environment, java 1.8.0_121). I can upgrade java 
if needed.


C:\temp>java -jar pdfbox-app-2.0.3.jar PDFToImage out.pdf

C:\temp>dir out1.jpg
  El volumen de la unidad C no tiene etiqueta.
  El número de serie del volumen es: 98F8-8920

  Directorio de C:\temp

15/06/2017  15:35             4.107 out1.jpg
                1 archivos          4.107 bytes
                0 dirs  52.658.810.880 bytes libres

C:\temp>java -jar pdfbox-app-2.0.4.jar PDFToImage out.pdf

C:\temp>dir out1.jpg
  El volumen de la unidad C no tiene etiqueta.
  El número de serie del volumen es: 98F8-8920

  Directorio de C:\temp

15/06/2017  15:36             4.286 out1.jpg
                1 archivos          4.286 bytes
                0 dirs  52.658.810.880 bytes libres

C:\temp>java -jar pdfbox-app-2.0.6.jar PDFToImage out.pdf

C:\temp>dir out1.jpg
  El volumen de la unidad C no tiene etiqueta.
  El número de serie del volumen es: 98F8-8920

  Directorio de C:\temp

15/06/2017  15:36             4.286 out1.jpg
                1 archivos          4.286 bytes
                0 dirs  52.658.810.880 bytes libres

C:\temp>java -version
java version "1.8.0_121"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_121-b13)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.121-b13, mixed mode)


In my case out1.jpg has a different size (4.107 vs 4.286). If you compare 
visually the output, files are almost the same, the difference is visible when 
you zoom in.

My screen should be at 100% (how can I check?).

Esteban





________________________________
De: Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]>
Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 06:29 p.m.
Para: [email protected]
Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also 
applies to 2.0.6)

Am 15.06.2017 um 20:19 schrieb Esteban R:
I'm sorry. I was not using exactly pdfbox-app-2.0.4.jar but 
pdfbox-app-2.0.4-20160925.091907-39.jar (maybe a snapshot build?). I'm not sure 
where did I get that version. I have tryied with pdfbox-app-2.0.4.jar and the 
output is the same than in version 2.0.6.


So, I tried again with pdfbox-app-2.0.3.jar (downloaded from 
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox-app/2.0.3) and It 
produces the same output than pdfbox-app-2.0.4-20160925.091907-39.jar (so the 
change is between versions 2.0.3 and 2.0.4).
Maven Repository: org.apache.pdfbox » pdfbox-app » 
2.0.3<https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox-app/2.0.3>
mvnrepository.com
org.apache.pdfbox pdfbox-app




Same rendering in PDFDebugger for me, regardless whether jdk8 or jdk9.

Tilman



Esteban



________________________________
De: Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]>
Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 04:33 p.m.
Para: [email protected]
Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also 
applies to 2.0.6)

Am 15.06.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Esteban R:
Warning: don't use the following link to download de pdf: 
<http://file-upload.com/d/6FgO>   (seems to be a malicious page, I tried to 
remove the link while writing the e-mail, but that part was kept anyways)
done

.

Use this one instead:

http://wikisend.com/download/185248/out.pdf
Thanks... disregard my theory about PDFBOX-1958. But I am not able to
reproduce the effect with jdk8. With jdk9 there is an effect but it
looks better for me (my screen is on 125%).

The PDFToImage results are identical.

What jdk are you using? What OS, and do you have a screen that is not
set at 100% ?

Tilman




Esteban

________________________________
De: Esteban R <[email protected]>
Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 04:09 p.m.
Para: [email protected]
Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also 
applies to 2.0.6)

These links should work for at least a week:



Screenshots:

https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg
[https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg]

[https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg
[https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg]

]
[https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg
[https://img4.file-upload.com/i/00298/5ep2gagcmcna.jpg]

]
(2.0.4)

https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg
[https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg]

[https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg
[https://img5.file-upload.com/i/00298/8llrhev3r8oz.jpg]

]
(2.0.5)


PDF:

<http://file-upload.com/d/6FgO>http://wikisend.com/download/185248/out.pdf (need to click 
the "Download" button)

________________________________
De: Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]>
Enviado: jueves, 15 de junio de 2017 03:35 p.m.
Para: [email protected]
Asunto: Re: Change in image quality between versions 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 (also 
applies to 2.0.6)

Am 15.06.2017 um 02:37 schrieb Esteban R:
Hello.


I have noticed with PDFDebugger that the same pdf is rendered
differently by pdfbox-2.0.4 and by pdfbox-2.0.5 (pdfbox-2.0.6 produces
the same output than pdfbox-2.0.5): the newer versions generate a more
pixelated image.


Please find attached a sample pdf and two screenshots of PDFDebugger
in version 2.0.4 and in version 2.0.5 (also applies for version 2.0.6).

Please upload a PDF to a sharehoster, attachments don't get through. It
*might* be
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958
[PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is 
...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
issues.apache.org
This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the 
image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in 
another ...



[PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is 
...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
[PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is 
...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
issues.apache.org
This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the 
image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in 
another ...



issues.apache.org
This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the 
image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in 
another ...



[PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is 
...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
[PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is 
...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
issues.apache.org
This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the 
image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in 
another ...



[PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is 
...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
[PDFBOX-1958] image mask outline with shading pattern is 
...<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1958>
issues.apache.org
This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the 
image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in 
another ...



issues.apache.org
This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the 
image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in 
another ...



issues.apache.org
This is also somewhat of a regression: two weeks ago, the attached file had the 
image rendered in b/w, now it is invisible. I was able to get the image in 
another ...



see the last two comments I made there. Without the change some files
would not be rendered at all.


The old approach is better for our pourposes. Is there a way to revert
to the old rendering?

By using 2.0.4, obviously. Alternatively build from source code a 2.0.6
version, and try to revert the commit mentioned in the issue above. It
is possible because the change did not touch very much.

But I'd still be interested in seeing your PDF.

Tilman


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to